Hi Stephen,
Thanks for the response.
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Most of the above are also in grumpy areas of infrastructure where adding a person to fix it means they will need to learn a lot of other things before it works well or doesn't snag up something else. It would be good to add a person, but don't expect an instant win but more instant pain in doing so.
Right.
There is also a part where infrastructure and releng are separate units in some ways and not separate in others. Some of your blockers are on one and some are on another and some in between. I can really answer on the content mirroring side as I believe we can figure out a way to do that. Other parts are on koji developers and other developers who work on signing.
Yeah. The more I think about this, maybe Project Atomic should operate on its own, deriving from Fedora, but with separate infrastructure.
Let's look at an example of another project:
They have their own ISO page <http://resources.ovirt.org/pub/ovirt-3.4/> (and it's slick!), their own GPG keys, their own release schedule, their own ovirt-release RPMs, their own installation instructions, their own mirroring list. And presumably their own system administrators.
And ultimately their own branding. Maybe that's the right thing for Atomic too?
I can see a lot of advantages to that path; disadvantages as well of course. Does anyone else have opinions on this? Are we trying to do too much in Fedora? Should it remain a base set of RPMs, with differently branded products deriving from it externally?
_______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
