On 10/04/2016 01:38 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 12:58:05PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: >> What this is sounding like is a huge discrepancy between what the >> Council, PRD group, etc. think we should be doing and what we can >> actually do. >> >> Given that, I think I should tell the designer to push the design >> changes back. > > I don't see how that follows. In the ideal — and I think most likely, > since the bugs making F25 not work are being knocked off — case, we'll > have Atomic built on F25 at F25 GA date. In the less ideal case, we'll > keep shipping the F24-based one, but there's no reason that can't work > with the new Atomic-focused design. For that matter, we could launch > that _before_ the GA. So, I'm looking at this from a user perspective. * F25 is announced * User goes to getfedora.org, sees new "atomic" icon. * User clicks through * User sees that Atomic is still F24. >From that point, one of two things happens: 1. User files a bug, and we're flooded with "atomic download page not updated" bugs, or 2. user decides that Atomic isn't a real thing and never goes back. I really don't see a flow that results in the user checking back two weeks later to see if Atomic has been updated yet. Especially since we're dealing with a substantial issue with SELinux and it's not guaranteed that there will be an F25 atomic release 2 weeks later, either. You are the Project Leader, and you can certainly say "do it anyway". But please understand why I think it's not a great idea. -- -- Josh Berkus Project Atomic Red Hat OSAS _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list -- cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to cloud-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
