On 09/30/2016 01:11 PM, Adam Miller wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 04:16:15PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> think QA clearly understands what cloud image(s) are release blocking,
>>> as previously they were just the non-atomic images.
>> Which images are prominent on the download pages and how much of a
>> relationship there is between that and 'release blocking' status is
>> *also* not my problem, but I'd agree with you (Chris) that it'd be
>> rather strange for the most prominently advertised deliverable for a
>> given product not to be a release-blocking one.
>
> I don't think that Atomic *needs* to be release blocking, because if it
> misses the grand unified release, we have the ability to update it at
> the next cycle, so it's less of a big deal. But if we collectively
> prefer to make sure everything is lined up on the release day... I can
> see arguments for that, too.
Well, currently I'm working with the designers on a new page for Atomic
F25. So if that's NOT going to be live the day of the F25 release, then
it's something we need to know ahead of time.
I also really don't like the message Atomic not being ready sends. We
will have three branches for GetFedora: Workstation, Server, and Atomic.
If Atomic isn't ready the day of the release, it looks pretty bad;
that's saying we're ok with only being 2/3 ready, or that despite
promoting Atomic to 1st class status we don't really believe it's important.
--
--
Josh Berkus
Project Atomic
Red Hat OSAS