On 10/04/2016 01:38 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 12:58:05PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> What this is sounding like is a huge discrepancy between what the
> Council, PRD group, etc. think we should be doing and what we can
> actually do.
>
> Given that, I think I should tell the designer to push the design
> changes back.
I don't see how that follows. In the ideal — and I think most likely,
since the bugs making F25 not work are being knocked off — case, we'll
have Atomic built on F25 at F25 GA date. In the less ideal case, we'll
keep shipping the F24-based one, but there's no reason that can't work
with the new Atomic-focused design. For that matter, we could launch
that _before_ the GA.
So, I'm looking at this from a user perspective.
* F25 is announced
* User goes to
getfedora.org, sees new "atomic" icon.
* User clicks through
* User sees that Atomic is still F24.
From that point, one of two things happens:
1. User files a bug, and we're flooded with "atomic download page not
updated" bugs, or
2. user decides that Atomic isn't a real thing and never goes back.
I really don't see a flow that results in the user checking back two
weeks later to see if Atomic has been updated yet. Especially since
we're dealing with a substantial issue with SELinux and it's not
guaranteed that there will be an F25 atomic release 2 weeks later, either.
You are the Project Leader, and you can certainly say "do it anyway".
But please understand why I think it's not a great idea.
--
--
Josh Berkus
Project Atomic
Red Hat OSAS