On 10/04/2016 08:13 AM, Colin Walters wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016, at 09:46 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote: >> > >> > I think mattdm would agree we don't want to potentially, >> > *indefinitely* block a six-month release with a deliverable that can >> > be fixed and re-released in two weeks. > It's not that simple - this is a messy topic. What I think this > is about isn't delaying or blocking - it's *prioritization*. If > an issue comes up in Anaconda or systemd or whatever > that affects the "next AH", we need those teams to priortize > those fixes the same as they do for Workstation or Server. Yes, this is exactly the problem I'm raising. We've had an issue with F25-base Atomic not booting for a couple weeks now, and until the last couple of days, nobody has been working on it. It seems to be a simple fact of the Fedora release cycle that if something isn't release-blocking, it doesn't get done. This isn't new, it's an issue which has plagued Fedora Atomic for, as far as I can tell, its entire existence. And, like I said, this also ties into the F25 cycle getfedora.org redesign. We simply can't go ahead with a redesign which emphasizes Atomic over the cloud base image if F25-base Atomic isn't ready at release time. We'll have to hold that back, and that's something the design team needs to know. -- -- Josh Berkus Project Atomic Red Hat OSAS _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list -- cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to cloud-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
