El mié, 12-04-2017 a las 08:38 -0400, Matthew Miller escribió: > 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". I am going to strongly object to the Beta criteria. its not realistic to support some random nightly. it causes a manual workload on someone and increases technical debt. Something we are working really hard to pay off. Its either part of Beta or it does not exist. Dennis
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ cloud mailing list -- cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to cloud-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
