On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 are prominent on the download pages and how much of a >> relationship there is between that and 'release blocking' status is >> *also* not my problem, but I'd agree with you (Chris) that it'd be >> rather strange for the most prominently advertised deliverable for a >> given product not to be a release-blocking one. > > I don't think that Atomic *needs* to be release blocking, because if it > misses the grand unified release, we have the ability to update it at > the next cycle, so it's less of a big deal. But if we collectively > prefer to make sure everything is lined up on the release day... I can > see arguments for that, too. > Note that the cycle that Matt is mentioning here is Two-Week iterations for Atomic Host so the window to release is relatively rapid compared to the standard ~6 months. -AdamM > > -- > Matthew Miller > <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Fedora Project Leader > _______________________________________________ > cloud mailing list -- cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to cloud-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list -- cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to cloud-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
