Peter Robinson (pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx) said: > I think atomic is an excellent use case for that style of updates and > with decent testing would even provide decent rolling style of update > between releases with the ability to do rollbacks too with one boot > type of functionality (update, set watchdog, reboot, test connectivity > and core functionality, unset one-boot flag for rollback or if tests > fail/watchdog triggers). > > The first two items are covered to some degree by atomic, the later > would need some form of push management platform. I've not looked > closely at feedhenry bits as I don't believe they've been opensourced > yet, or I missed the announcement but there could be building blocks > there. Definitely fits way way better for the use case than our traditional model. Although given that each IoT thingamajig is likely going to want a level of customization, that means either concentrating more on the container build aspect for the customized bits, or if they need heavier customization, concentrating more on the atomic-producing tools rather than the One True Atomic IoT tree. Bill _______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/council-discuss The Fedora Project's mission is to lead the advancement of free and open source software and content as a collaborative community.
