On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 1:16 AM, langdon <langdon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 08/19/2015 06:06 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:04 AM, Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> 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. >> >> Completely agree, I was thinking something akin to docker layered >> images on top of the base. But you also have IoT gateways, and the >> various other components of IoT that aren't thingamajig endpoints. > > > What about an Objective to understand if IoT is a thing for Fedora to > pursue? Maybe a shorter one, e.g. 6 months, with metrics like: > a) delivered and evaluated a survey of fedora comm members and interest is n > b) what kind of changes would need to be made to infrastructure tooling? > c) what is the best model for such a pursuit: SiG, Edition, something else? > > I suppose SiG could also do this, but, in my mind, a SiG is "we want to > pursue this interest, irrelevant of the interests of Fedora at large" (which > I mean *very* positively, despite the writing sounding negative). I would > think this Objective would be "Let's get Fedora to concentrate on this > subject, at large, because reasons" SiG could also be a staging place to see if it has teeth, but then that also depends if it has backing and organisation. Some SiGs progress well because they have backing (some arch sigs, server SIG etc) where some tend to languish and while possibly successful in their niche they never get massively wide interest. P _______________________________________________ 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.
