On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:30:18PM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/AtomicWorkstation > has some answers to your questions. It does, thanks. I did look at that before but had forgotten some of it -- and it's a really nicely done document, so that's on me. Thanks for the reminder. However, when it gets to the "applications" and "developer needs" portions, it's more about possibilities and plans than concrete steps, which is where I'm worried about the practical aspects. If we're going to make this as a prototype/demo/toy for F25, with a goal further out, that's not a problem. But if we want to deliver all of that by then, we really need to step up in resources. Take a look at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering/PriorityPipeline — support for ostree-based Workstation is there, but there's nothing for application delivery as xdg-apps or the "different installation mechanism" mentioned in Owen's doc. > As for closer alignment with Atomic, I have heard both your opinion > (yes, make this part of the atomic umbrella) and the opposite (no, > atomic is already too much of a grab bag of stuff). I personally think > aligning with Atomic is the right idea. Yeah, I hear the grab-bag thing too. I don't think we should put anything under the name _without_ also have the alignment with technology. And, the other way around, it's a good idea to align the technology even if we don't use the name. For example, if we could produce xdg-apps through Fedora Release Engineering using the same build pipeline that's being worked on for Docker images, the work required would collapse to creating documentation for how to do that and any related policies, rather than a whole *new* releng change. -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
