[DISCUSS] Making Atomic the cloud edition

[Aditya Patawari]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:24 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jzb at redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> 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
> months.
>
> 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?
For the sake of completion, Kushal and many others pointed out, that
we need to ensure that we clearly highlight on our downloads page and
at other appropriate location that we still support base image. The
move should not confuse users and should not give an impression that
Atomic is the only cloud offering that we have.

>
> (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.)
>
> Thanks,
>
> jzb
> --
> Joe Brockmeier | Community Team, OSAS
> jzb at redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/
> Twitter: @jzb  | http://dissociatedpress.net/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cloud mailing list
> cloud at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
>