dustymabe added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
OK. Some time later - an update on this ticket
- Highlighting OSTree commits as the delivered artifact
We will be setting an ostree version that corresponds to
the pungi compose ID. See OSTREE_VERSION_FROM_LABEL_DATE_TYPE_RESPIN
in
https://pagure.io/pungi/pull-request/592. We are already
using this for rawhide.
- If we change the compose ID - what about Multi-Arch?
We are not planning to change the compose ID any longer. Additionally
with bodhi calling pungi we will be able to support multi-arch better.
- pungi compose ids are inflexible
Still using the same compose ID as in the past so no issues here
- Getting rid of bodhi creation of ostrees
planned and in progress:
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/300
- Coupling ostree creation with image creation
Since we are also planning to move mash to pungi we might as well
add image/ISO creation to pungi and have it do everything all at
the same time. This would mean we no longer have timing issues
**Identified Action Items**
1. We can work on patches to pungi to accept an ostree version as input and know what to
do with it. This would be a version that would be input for image creation, not
necessarily for ostree tree compose creation. i.e. build a qcow image for ostree version
25.100 that is in the ostree repo. Assumes the ostree version already exists.
Done.
https://pagure.io/pungi/pull-request/592
2. We can work on patches to pungi to that can determine what the ostree version should be
and set that during ostree tree compose time. See
https://pagure.io/pungi/pull-request/575
Same as above
3. We need to provide to releng a script that can be run so they can "detect"
what ostree version to specify as a compose id (I believe this assumes we keep
ostree/image creation decoupled)
No need. Just use OSTREE_VERSION_FROM_LABEL_DATE_TYPE_RESPIN
4. Determine priority of having bodhi call pungi to create ostrees
high :)
5. We need to determine what we want the OSTree version to look like for Fedora 26 (right
now the atomic WG proposal is `$majorversion.$year$month$day.$serial` `26.20170320.0`.
Please comment in
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/229
We will get 26.20170320.0
6. Figure out if a compose id like `Fedora-Atomic-26-26.20170220.0_0` is possible and if
anything breaks as a result.
No Need
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/260