[DISCUSS] Making Atomic the cloud edition
jzb at redhat.com
Tue Aug 18 22:54:16 UTC 2015
For the folks who were at Flock last week, this is a recap of the
discussion we had and what I recall as the general agreement in the
room. If my memory has failed me, please add or correct as necessary.
For folks who weren't at Flock (or were, but not in the cloud working
group meeting), this is a brief recap of what we discussed and is
proposed - but *not* decided. I would like to reach a decision /
consensus here, so let's discuss here and I'll ask the working group
members to explicitly +1 (or not) within 72 hours. But absent any hard
-1s, better proposals, etc. then I'd like to close the discussion within
that timeframe so we can move on to discussing with FESCo and other
groups (Websites, marketing) who we'll need to sync with.
Given that a great deal of interesting work is going into the Fedora
Atomic host, we'd like to make Atomic the main deliverable/focus for the
Cloud Working Group and Cloud edition.
However, we know that Atomic doesn't fit well in the standard Fedora
six-month cycle, so we'd further propose making the two-week releases
the default deliverable - and work on appropriate testing so that users
who are using Fedora Atomic can expect that their containers and
Kubernetes orchestration won't break, but also will not need to care
whether the underlying release is based on F23, rawhide, etc.
This is going to require a lot of work to be done on testing so we can
ensure that we're not breaking anything and containers "just work" on
Atomic as users follow the updates on the 2-week cycle.
This will, I believe, need to go to FESCo and we'll have to put in some
serious cycles on documentation and work on marketing this. It's also
worth noting that this will mean very frequent releases and marketing
touchpoints as opposed to just alpha, beta, and final releases every six
We also will continue to do the base cloud image - that won't go away -
but it won't be the focus of the working group or its marketing.
Finally, we also discussed that the host was only part of the larger
effort - we also need to pour some attention into improving the Docker
image, making that smaller and a better option.
Thoughts, comments, flames? Did I miss anything?
(Apologies if this is not the most coherent summary - I'm typing this
from the floor of LinuxCon North America and not able to give this the
amount of revision I would usually give for something of this
importance. However, time is a factor as the decision is required to
move forward on other items.)
Joe Brockmeier | Community Team, OSAS
jzb at redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/
Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the cloud