Re: Cloud and Server Q

2016-10-07 Thread Josh Berkus
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

Re: Cloud and Server Q

2016-10-06 Thread Benson Muite
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

Re: Cloud and Server Q

2016-10-05 Thread Matthew Miller
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

Re: Cloud and Server Q

2016-10-05 Thread Chris Murphy
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

Re: Cloud and Server Q

2016-10-05 Thread Adam Miller
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

Re: Cloud and Server Q

2016-10-04 Thread Matthew Miller
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.

Re: Cloud and Server Q

2016-10-04 Thread Matthew Miller
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

Re: Cloud and Server Q

2016-10-04 Thread Matthew Miller
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

Re: Cloud and Server Q

2016-10-04 Thread Josh Berkus
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

Re: Cloud and Server Q

2016-10-04 Thread Chris Murphy
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

Re: Cloud and Server Q

2016-10-04 Thread Stephen John Smoogen
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

Re: Cloud and Server Q

2016-10-04 Thread Josh Berkus
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. >

Re: Cloud and Server Q

2016-10-04 Thread Colin Walters
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

Re: Cloud and Server Q

2016-10-04 Thread Paul W. Frields
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,

Re: Cloud and Server Q

2016-10-04 Thread Dennis Gilmore
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,

Re: Cloud and Server Q

2016-10-04 Thread Kushal Das
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

Re: Cloud and Server Q

2016-09-30 Thread Chris Murphy
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

Re: Cloud and Server Q

2016-09-30 Thread Josh Berkus
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

Re: Cloud and Server Q

2016-09-30 Thread Josh Berkus
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

Re: Cloud and Server Q

2016-09-30 Thread Adam Miller
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

Re: Cloud and Server Q

2016-09-30 Thread Adam Miller
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

Re: Cloud and Server Q

2016-09-30 Thread Matthew Miller
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

Re: Cloud and Server Q

2016-09-29 Thread Adam Williamson
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