On 10/06/2016 07:47 AM, Benson Muite wrote:
> Current beta release announcement at:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/F25_Beta_release_announcement#Fedora_Atomic
>
> Tries to be cautiously optimistic - do not want user frustration from
> initial attempts, but still want people who have the time
Current beta release announcement at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/F25_Beta_release_announcement#Fedora_Atomic
Tries to be cautiously optimistic - do not want user frustration from
initial attempts, but still want people who have the time to try it out.
On 10/05/2016 10:30 PM, Matthew
On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:57:49AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> So, I'm looking at this from a user perspective.
>
> * F25 is announced
> * User goes to getfedora.org, sees new "atomic" icon.
> * User clicks through
> * User sees that Atomic is still F24.
>
> From that point, one of two things
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 10/04/2016 01:38 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 12:58:05PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> What this is sounding like is a huge discrepancy between what the
>>> Council, PRD group, etc. think we
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 6:21 AM, Kushal Das wrote:
> On 30/09/16, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> On 09/30/2016 02:01 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>
>> > 16:44:56 Cloud base image is the only blocking deliverable.
>> > 16:44:59 Atomic is not.
>> >
>> > I realize this WG is in the middle of
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 12:58:05PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> What this is sounding like is a huge discrepancy between what the
> Council, PRD group, etc. think we should be doing and what we can
> actually do.
>
> Given that, I think I should tell the designer to push the design
> changes back.
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 11:13:02AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> It's not that simple - this is a messy topic. What I think this
> is about isn't delaying or blocking - it's *prioritization*. If
> an issue comes up in Anaconda or systemd or whatever
> that affects the "next AH", we need those
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 09:46:44AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> We need to be clear on the difference between considering it important
> for Atomic images to be ready on release day, and being "release
> blockers." The latter has a very specific meaning as Adam W can
> attest. Being a
On 10/04/2016 11:21 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> The corollary is that if the people who are supposed to be working and
> caring for an edition are not doing the work already, making it
> release blocking doesn't magically fix it. What happens instead is
> that people who are doing that work
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 10/04/2016 08:13 AM, Colin Walters wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016, at 09:46 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I think mattdm would agree we don't want to potentially,
>>> > *indefinitely* block a six-month release
On 4 October 2016 at 13:59, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 10/04/2016 08:13 AM, Colin Walters wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016, at 09:46 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I think mattdm would agree we don't want to potentially,
>>> > *indefinitely* block a six-month release with
On 10/04/2016 08:13 AM, Colin Walters wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016, at 09:46 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>> >
>> > I think mattdm would agree we don't want to potentially,
>> > *indefinitely* block a six-month release with a deliverable that can
>> > be fixed and re-released in two weeks.
>
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016, at 09:46 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>
> I think mattdm would agree we don't want to potentially,
> *indefinitely* block a six-month release with a deliverable that can
> be fixed and re-released in two weeks.
It's not that simple - this is a messy topic. What I think this
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 08:14:43AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> On Friday, September 30, 2016 5:01:52 PM CDT Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > > On 09/30/2016 01:11 PM, Adam Miller wrote:
> > >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 8:35 AM,
On Friday, September 30, 2016 5:01:52 PM CDT Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > On 09/30/2016 01:11 PM, Adam Miller wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Matthew Miller
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Thu,
On 30/09/16, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 09/30/2016 02:01 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> > 16:44:56 Cloud base image is the only blocking deliverable.
> > 16:44:59 Atomic is not.
> >
> > I realize this WG is in the middle of rebooting itself, but to have
> > clearly conflicting information from the WG
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 09/30/2016 02:01 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
>> 16:44:56 Cloud base image is the only blocking deliverable.
>> 16:44:59 Atomic is not.
>>
>> I realize this WG is in the middle of rebooting itself, but to have
>> clearly
On 09/30/2016 02:01 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> 16:44:56 Cloud base image is the only blocking deliverable.
> 16:44:59 Atomic is not.
>
> I realize this WG is in the middle of rebooting itself, but to have
> clearly conflicting information from the WG members is a bit
> concerning.
Kushal?
Based
On 09/30/2016 01:11 PM, Adam Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Matthew Miller
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 04:16:15PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
think QA clearly understands what cloud image(s) are release blocking,
as previously they
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 04:16:15PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > think QA clearly understands what cloud image(s) are release blocking,
>> > as previously they were just the non-atomic images.
>> Which images
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 04:16:15PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > think QA clearly understands what cloud image(s) are release blocking,
>> > as previously they were just the non-atomic images.
>> Which images
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 04:16:15PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > think QA clearly understands what cloud image(s) are release blocking,
> > as previously they were just the non-atomic images.
> Which images are prominent on the download pages and how much of a
> relationship there is between
On Thu, 2016-09-29 at 16:51 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> But I don't
> think QA clearly understands what cloud image(s) are release blocking,
> as previously they were just the non-atomic images.
I don't know what's going on with all this crap, but so far as I'm
concerned I understand perfectly
23 matches
Mail list logo