On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 11:12:08AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > or it isn't, but I'm not convinced either direction and I'm curious
> > what others think about the justification of not being tightly bound
> > to the release cycle.
> Also, once we go into rolling releases, how would this work?
The rolling releases will still be based on an underlying overall
Fedora OS version. I think it helps from a PR perspective to have the
Atomic Host based on new versions ready on "launch day".
I was talking with Dusty about this the other day, and came up with
this wording:
Final:
It must be possible to build valid Fedora Atomic Host deliverables
(ostree, ISO, and images) from GA or post-GA packages for this Fedora
release.
* May include zero-day updates
* "Valid" means passing the Fedora Atomic Host test automatic suite
and manual validation
Beta:
It must be possible to build valid Fedora Atomic Host deliverables
(ostree, ISO, and images) from this branch of Fedora.
* I carefully didn't say "beta release" bits here. If we're
successfully building on the new branch but have some particular
issue at beta release time, it's okay to present an earlier build and
later update once that's fixed. If necessary, we can call this
"pre-release" rather than "beta".
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Fedora Project Leader
_______________________________________________
cloud mailing list -- cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to cloud-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
