On 09/30/2016 01:11 PM, Adam Miller wrote: > 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. Well, currently I'm working with the designers on a new page for Atomic F25. So if that's NOT going to be live the day of the F25 release, then it's something we need to know ahead of time. I also really don't like the message Atomic not being ready sends. We will have three branches for GetFedora: Workstation, Server, and Atomic. If Atomic isn't ready the day of the release, it looks pretty bad; that's saying we're ok with only being 2/3 ready, or that despite promoting Atomic to 1st class status we don't really believe it's important. -- -- Josh Berkus Project Atomic Red Hat OSAS _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list -- cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to cloud-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
