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