Atomic Updates - do we follow traditional model or a new one?

[Joe Brockmeier]

Hey all,

One of the things that came out of the weekly meeting with infra/releng
and folks working on Atomic is what I think may be a mis-match in
expectations on upgrades/release process for the Atomic host.

As called out in the host definition[1] Atomic is planned as a rolling
stream of updates - and users are expected to move to the next release
in the stream rather than staying on a specific version or having to
carry an overlapping stream.

That is: If you're on Fedora 21 Atomic, when Fedora 22 Atomic is
released then that would be what you switch to - not a Fedora 21 tree.

I know for CentOS Atomic we won't be maintaining a set of overlapping
releases, and I don't think RHEL will either. That sort of defeats the
model, really. (Also, there's not exactly an upgrade for Atomic
something like F21->F22 if there are multiple trees, eventually you
would have to manually switch trees if we were producing overlapping sets.)

In discussing this in today's meeting[2], Dennis suggested we'd need to
go to FESCo to get agreement that we can pursue the non-overlapping
model. Before I do that, I wanted to make sure we were all in agreement
that is the way to go.

Thoughts, comments, flames?

[1] https://gist.github.com/jzb/0f336c6f23a0ba145b0a
[2]
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/atomic/2014-10-07/atomic.2014-10-07-18.09.txt
-- 
Joe Brockmeier | Principal Cloud & Storage Analyst
jzb at redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/
Twitter: @jzb  | http://dissociatedpress.net/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/cloud/attachments/20141007/bdd81ab1/attachment-0001.sig>