On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 12:26:43AM -0400, James Antill wrote:
At least one view of the model is that you have atomic upgrades, and
thus. rollback/downgrades. This fits perfectly with the f21/f21/f23
release model (although rpm-ostree rebase is very surprising when it
deletes your refs, you
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014, at 12:26 AM, James Antill wrote:
At least one view of the model is that you have atomic upgrades, and
thus. rollback/downgrades. This fits perfectly with the f21/f21/f23
release model (although rpm-ostree rebase is very surprising when it
deletes your refs, you can still
On 10/08/2014 08:55 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
I agree. And since we're making the packages from which the Atomic versions
will be composed, what's the _downside_ of making releases available as
distinct releases? Since it's produced from RPMs that we're making
automatically, isn't it basically
On Wed, 2014-10-08 at 00:41 -0400, Michael Hampton wrote:
On 10/08/2014 12:26 AM, James Antill wrote:
I would also disagree strongly that RHEL will ever follow this model. I
would bet a huge amount of money that if customers are using the
official trees at all then enough of them will be
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 09:19:41AM -0500, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
I see a few downsides:
* Having to test multiple releases. Not sure that quite fits under very
little effort. (Maybe someday when we have automated testing, that will
be different.)
I'm not sure that follows... we'll have to test
On 10/08/2014 09:36 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 09:19:41AM -0500, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
I see a few downsides:
* Having to test multiple releases. Not sure that quite fits under very
little effort. (Maybe someday when we have automated testing, that will
be different.)
Hey all,
One of the things that came out of the weekly meeting with infra/releng
and folks working on Atomic is what I think may be a mis-match in
expectations on upgrades/release process for the Atomic host.
As called out in the host definition[1] Atomic is planned as a rolling
stream of
On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 17:33 -0500, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
Hey all,
One of the things that came out of the weekly meeting with infra/releng
and folks working on Atomic is what I think may be a mis-match in
expectations on upgrades/release process for the Atomic host.
As called out in the
On 10/08/2014 12:26 AM, James Antill wrote:
I would also disagree strongly that RHEL will ever follow this model. I
would bet a huge amount of money that if customers are using the
official trees at all then enough of them will be willing to pay for
rhel8 after rhel9 goes live that it'll just
