On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 12:19 -0500, Colin Walters wrote: > The primary concern I had around this was - I want to make > something that "early adopters" could test and provide > feedback on, but *also* run seriously. > > By "seriously" for example I mean we need security updates, > and we need at least one "stable" branch where things aren't > churning too much for the base OS. So having the project > *solely* linked to rawhide doesn't really meet those criteria > today. > > If we have both f26 and rawhide branches that seems OK. I think the F26 branch of Atomic Workstation (and I'm not suggesting removing that) makes a lot of sense for early adopters *of Atomic Workstation*. It won't give much ability to test other things on an early-adoption basis. > But I also want the ability to quickly test changes to the f26 > version (same requirement for Atomic Host actually) - be > able to quickly pull in a testing version of e.g. systemd or anaconda > that *don't* affect things derived from the "base package set". Are you suggesting that we could pull a different systemd into "F26 Atomic Workstation" as compared to "F26 Workstation"? This strikes me as ultra-confusing. In the back of my mind, a Fedora contributor should be able to "branch" F26, changes systemd, and have a ostree spit out that they can try testing, but that seems a long way off. It would, of course, be great if we had continuous builds of F26 so we can get instant feedback when fixing problems there, and so we can run integration testing, but my understanding is that it's more difficult than for Rawhide: * Because mirroring needs to be standard * Because we have to figure out the Bodhi interaction Which is why I pushed it off to "goal 5". - Owen _______________________________________________ desktop mailing list -- desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
