On 07/18/2014 10:07 AM, Colin Walters wrote: > 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. Yes and no. I think we should probably work as a Remix for the F21 timeframe while still trying to get as much in for the Cloud Product as possible - and then try to be well-integrated with Fedora infra within the F22 timeframe. I know the infrastructure + releng folks are always overtasked, and I don't want to overload them. At the same time, it'd be good to do this as an official Fedora piece in the long term. > Let's look at an example of another project: > http://www.ovirt.org/Home > > They have their own ISO page <http://resources.ovirt.org/pub/ovirt-3.4/> > <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? Can we take a middle path and simply treat the F21 cycle as a ramp-up? Best, jzb -- Joe Brockmeier | Principal Cloud & Storage Analyst jzb@xxxxxxxxxx | http://community.redhat.com/ Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
