On 26 August 2016 at 14:27, Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 04:43:50PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> There are a lot of images being produced and I have no idea if they're
> really needed. That a release blocking image (cloud base qcow2) nearly
> caused F25 alpha to slip because it was busted at least suggests it
> probably shouldn't be release blocking anymore. FWIW, cloud base qcow2
> now gets grub2 in lieu of extlinux as the work around for the
> breakage.
Puts us back at 231M for the qcow2, instead of 195M for F24. Ah well;
at least it boots.
Well if it helps any, the alternative is a 0 MB image :). I think we
can all agree that is as good as it gets until we get complex or
negative storage.
Rather than having the Cloud Base Image — or its Server-based
successor
— be blocking, I'd like to it as see an updated, automatically-tested
two-week image. Ideally, we'd have a solid one on release day, but if
we don't for some reason, it'd be less of a crisis.
We also, obviously, have a process breakdown with what to do with
failure reports from autocloud.
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
_______________________________________________
server mailing list
server(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/server@lists.fedoraproject.org
--
Stephen J Smoogen.