On 03/10/2015 09:20 PM, Michael P. McGrath wrote:
Fedora in particular will have their
rawhide and stable releases promoted differently on the Fedora sites and
the project atomic page will likely promote things a little differently
and that is probably Ok as long as everyone ultimately has a choice to
download whatever they want. I think the promotion part is largely just
a way to direct people who otherwise don't know how to make an informed
decision.
If we don't have a unified story between Project Atomic and Fedora w/r/t
what to download and what we think people "should" use, it's going to be
confusing. I'm very concerned that an Atomic that conforms to the normal
Fedora release cycle + a fast-moving Fedora-based Atomic from Project
Atomic is going to be a messaging nightmare.
Some people's entry point to the discussion is via Project Atomic, some
enter via Fedora - and then of course we get people coming from third
parties who are writing about Project Atomic for a variety of reasons
and with a varying level of understanding about what Atomic is. We've
seen people just assume "oh, there's a CentOS build that says Atomic, it
*must* be a rebuild of RHEL Atomic" (which is wrong) and come away
disappointed.
Assuming we'll be OK as "everyone has a choice to download what they
want" may be overly optimistic here.
The more I think about this, the more I think we really need a unified
story rather than having two separate entry paths to Atomic for Fedora.
On the Project Atomic side I'm mostly concerned with the emerging
tech.
Getting new features in front of people as soon as possible. In the
short term, Fedora rawhide really is the only place to do that. Longer term
though there is a desire to base the Atomic dependent packages (docker,
kubernetes, etcd, ostree, etc.) on something more stable.
--
Joe Brockmeier | Project Atomic Doer of Things
jzb(a)redhat.com |
http://projectatomic.io
Twitter: @jzb |
http://dissociatedpress.net/