Re: Atomic status

[Colin Walters]

Hi Stephen,



Thanks for the response.



On Fri, Jul 18, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:


Most of the above are also in grumpy areas of infrastructure
where adding a person to fix it means they will need to learn a
lot of other things before it works well or doesn't snag up
something else. It would be good to add a person, but don't
expect an instant win but more instant pain in doing so.



Right.



There is also a part where infrastructure and releng are
separate units in some ways and not separate in others. Some of
your blockers are on one and some are on another and some in
between. I can really answer on the content mirroring side as I
believe we can figure out a way to do that. Other parts are on
koji developers and other developers who work on signing.



Yeah.  The more I think about this, maybe Project Atomic should
operate on its own, deriving from Fedora, but with separate
infrastructure.



Let's look at an example of another project:

[1]http://www.ovirt.org/Home



They have their own ISO page
<[2]http://resources.ovirt.org/pub/ovirt-3.4/> (and it's
slick!), their own GPG keys, their own release schedule, their
own ovirt-release RPMs, their own installation instructions,
their own mirroring list.  And presumably their own system
administrators.



And ultimately their own branding.  Maybe that's the right
thing for Atomic too?



I can see a lot of advantages to that path; disadvantages as
well of course.  Does anyone else have opinions on this?  Are
we trying to do too much in Fedora?  Should it remain a base
set of RPMs, with differently branded products deriving from it
externally?

References

1. http://www.ovirt.org/Home
2. http://resources.ovirt.org/pub/ovirt-3.4/