On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Dusty Mabe <dusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> On 11/13/2015 10:41 AM, Amanda Carter wrote: >>> >>> Hey folks, creating a separate thread for this longer term discussion. >>> We're getting ready to release our first 2 week atomic update on Tuesday and >>> Dusty Mabe has raised 2 potential release blockers that were not part of >>> automated testing. It's good that he caught them, but it's also a bit of a >>> stroke of luck. Since there is no official QE for this release, who should >>> own verifying that there are no release blocking bugs prior to every >>> automated release and escalating if there are? If no one raises the blocker, >>> we'll have no way to block the release. >>> >>> This is something that we need an answer to fairly quickly since we don't >>> even have confidence that the current release is good other than the current >>> reports. And we'll be taking this plunge again in just 2 weeks. >>> >>> Thanks for your attention to this, >>> >> >> We should really have a blocker review process for these similar to the ones >> we have for normal Fedora releases. Primary items that we should be > > Are these 2 week images built from updates that are currently in > stable, or are they built from updates-testing as well? > > I ask because it matters for things outside of atomic. The release > blocker review process works because it catches things _before_ they > are released for general availability. If the 2 week atomic images > are only composed from already stable updates, then the packages are > already out there in the project otherwise. > > So if you have something "blocker" in an atomic image, you are now > forced to wait for an update to make it through the entire fedora > updates process before you can ship your 2 week image. For something > like the kernel, that might very well mean you don't ship a 2 week > image because the fix is not in stable in sufficient time. > > The atomic images might be better served by doing tests on > updates-testing packages that are included to ensure that blockers > don't otherwise show up as a surprise. I would also recommend > reaching out to the package owners for each important package in > advance so that the atomic sig is aware of what is planned for updates > and such. > > josh I'd also point out that the nature of Atomic's rollback features make it better suited to less testing in that they can always roll back. The problem that I see comes if there's a bug that lasts through several releases causing a fairly bad trust scenario w/ upgrades. -- Mike McGrath | mmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxx | (312) 660-3547 Atomic | Red Hat Chicago | http://projectatomic.io/ _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
