On Mon, 2016-04-11 at 10:31 +0200, Jan Kurik wrote: > On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Dennis Gilmore <dennis@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Friday, April 8, 2016 12:47:37 PM CDT Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 2016-04-04 at 10:20 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well I believe it's what's used to then install the qemu cloud and > > > > > docker > > > > > images so if it fails then all that use it in the creation process would > > > > > fail which would make it release blocking due to dependency chains > > > > > wouldn't > > > > > it? > > > > It is what is used, to make the cloud images. if it by itself is release > > > > blocking, I am not sure, but if it does not work we have no cloud > > > > images. So it does have to work > > > Once again, this is an implementation detail that can change. The > > > blocking image list is not a technical list but a policy list. So this > > > alone does not justify the image's inclusion in the blocking image > > > list. > > > > > > It seems to me like we should ask jkurik to amend the list, because no- > > > one seems to actually consider the image to be blocking in itself. > > his list os incomplete and wrong. we need something taht automatically tracks > > things as they change > I guess we talk about this page > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/ReleaseBlocking/Fedora24 > May I ask you Dennis to share with me (not necessary on this mailing > list) what is wrong and what is missing ? The list on this page is > what we have agreed with FESCo for F23 and I am not aware of any > Change in the scope of F24 which made any significant changes. The specific thing we're discussing is this line: Cloud/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Cloud-netinst-x86_64-_RELEASE_MILESTONE_.iso yes Cloud WG I'm suggesting that should say 'no', not 'yes'. I believe the fact that it was signed off with 'yes' was essentially an oversight, because I don't think Cloud's ever actually demonstrated any interest in making the Cloud network install image some kind of primary deliverable. It is not available *in any way at all* from https://getfedora.org/en/cloud/download/ ;, for instance - not even stuck off to the side under 'Other Downloads'. It just isn't there. As it happens, in our *current* image building process, that image has to build before we can build several of the images that the Cloud WG really does care about. But that's simply an implementation detail. The 'release blocking image list' is a *policy* thing, not a representation of the current implementation details of our release engineering processes. Saying the Cloud network install image is a 'release blocking image' suggests that it's something we really care about *in itself*, that it's something we expect people to use a lot and we care a lot if they try and use it and it doesn't. AIUI, that is not at all true. For a thought experiment, say we were to change the image build process tomorrow so that all the Cloud images we actually care about - the qcows and the raws and the AMIs and the whatevers - could be built without first building the Cloud network install image, and then we did a compose where all those images showed up, but the Cloud network install image did not. Would anyone care? Would anyone shed a tear? Would we hold up the release in order to try and do a compose where the Cloud network image actually showed up? If the answer to that question is 'no', then the image should not be listed as 'release blocking'. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
