On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 6:21 AM, Kushal Das <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 30/09/16, Josh Berkus wrote: >> On 09/30/2016 02:01 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> >> > 16:44:56 <kushal> Cloud base image is the only blocking deliverable. >> > 16:44:59 <kushal> Atomic is not. >> > >> > I realize this WG is in the middle of rebooting itself, but to have >> > clearly conflicting information from the WG members is a bit >> > concerning. >> > Atomic host image is the deliverable for the Atomic WG, which is under 2 > week release cycle. We sync up with the official release version at the > time of GA, but we continue to be in our 2 week atomic release cycle > then on the 6month old GA. This is my understanding about all the work > done for 2 Week Atomic. > > Now I may be completely wrong to understand our 2 week release cycle > process, but this is what I followed for the release-infra work till > now. > This is correct, Fedora Atomic Two-Week Release was meant to allow Fedora Atomic more flexibility in it's release cycle. Part of the initial proposal was to remove it from being directly bound to the standard six month release cycle. If this is something we want to change, that's fine. However, if we do that we need to get buy in from all groups involved in that process instead of just change things out from everyone. Also, people will need to show up to do the work in Fedora QA because there's a lot of it and we can't realistically ask them to take on what is effectively 5 new deliverable artifacts without assistance (ISO, qcow2, raw, vagrant-vbox, vagrant-libvirt). -AdamM > Kushal > -- > Fedora Cloud Engineer > CPython Core Developer > https://kushaldas.in > https://dgplug.org > _______________________________________________ > 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
