basic plan for two-week atomic images

Michael P. McGrath mmcgrath at
Mon Jun 15 19:23:39 UTC 2015

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matthew Miller" <mattdm at>
> To: "Fedora Cloud SIG" <cloud at>
> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 10:17:31 AM
> Subject: Re: basic plan for two-week atomic images
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:37:18AM -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
> > >> > 2. Images built from those nightly (I think right now only rawhide?)
> > >> once f22 is final only rawhide.
> > > What would it take to make those happen post-release?
> > If we could get a clearly defined list of what these items are I would
> > be happy to work towards getting them done. I just don't know how that
> Going back to this old thread. :) What's the list you need here? I
> assume it's:
> - downloadable Atomic qcow2 (and raw.xz)
> - Same image uploaded to EC2 (and hopefully others)
> - installer ISO?

At this point I would settle for anything I could put here:

and blog about.

> > >> > 3. Images go through automated tests, automatically (tunir; not fully
> > >> >    automatic yet, right?)
> > >> there is zero automated testing available, but we really need it, afaik
> > >> it is
> > >> all manual
> > > See <>. Plus glorious
> > > Taskotron future, I'm sure. :)
> > I'm not sure where in the phases this should fit, it seems like a
> > giant forklift of work to me given that the base Fedora distro that
> > Atomic is going to be pulling it's bits from doesn't even have this
> > functionality. Am I mistaken or possibly missing something? (Please
> > correct me if I am)
> I think initially, this will be basic smoketests. Currently, I believe
> those are — Kushal, can you
> correct me if I'm wrong. So, we don't need to forklift the whole
> thing... just get these running automatically.
> > >> We need people to test, and a process to move things through stages.
> > >> build all the images, etc. a location to put things, i,e lots of
> > >> things
> > This largely piggy backs off my previous point. Automatic "graduation"
> > will require a decent amount of work and probably commitment from the
> > QA group. I won't speak to their capacity to cater to this but I think
> > what is ultimately being asked of them should be brought to their
> > attention as early as possible to get their input.
> I don't think we can ask a lot more of the QA group — we may need more,
> new bodies.
> > > Let's work at building the full list of lots of things. If we want to
> > > have people testing, I'd say that'd go something like:
> > >   - every two weeks, latest image to pass is flagged as needing human
> > >     testing, a la a package update in bodhi
> > >   - some sort of karma system — maybe it _is_ bodhi, but don't want to
> > >     block on that
> > If it were to be Bodhi, would the Atomic tree (or image) then be just
> > another build artifact pushed through and sync'd like an rpm? So for
> > at least the near term, it would require human intervention of
> > submitting an update?
> Yeah. Although maybe that update could be summitted by a bot of some
> sort? Presumably the same bot running Tunir. This would have the logic
> for "two weeks mark has passed; find the latest image to pass tests
> with this period, submit as update (or raise alarm if nothing has
> succeeded)".
> > > Atomic devs have expressed a strong worry about the lack of
> > > something like this, unless I'm misunderstanding. Possibly an
> > > alternate image including updates-testing would suffice (or, maybe,
> > > is actually separately necessary, since atomic doesn't let
> > > individual testers just pull in individual RPMs to test).
> > If I remember correctly, there are also concerns about things ending
> > up in Atomic trees that actually never see the light of day in Fedora
> > because they might never make it to stable. What's the policy on that
> > sort of thing? (Or is there one? I suspect this could be uncharted
> > territory because Atomic is effectively a new Operating System product
> > with it's own lifecycle aiming to operate within the Fedora umbrella)
> It's a little bit uncharted territory if we're using F22 as a base
> rather than Rawhide. For Rawhide, it's happened before (and
> theoretically should be SOP for a Change proposal which doesn't work
> out). But even with F22 base, as long as name-epoch-version-release
> marches forward, and the packages which are subject to such churn are
> clearly described as volatile, I don't see a problem.
> > I suspect that if/when the testing automation is in place the double
> > gate wouldn't be needed, especially if this is just considered a
> > development release. But I think that's where part of the problem lies
> > is that the Atomic dev teams wants to use a stable OS as something
> > that is re-rev'd with components updated and replaced but still call
> > it "Fedora $VERSION" when in fact, it is not the same as what others
> > will get from Fedora $VERSION unless they install from either the
> > Atomic image or this dev tree. (depending on what the decisions are
> > there)
> I think mostly the components that will get updated and replaced are
> under the general Atomic umbrella, right? (Kubernetes, Atomic,
> Docker...) Do we have concrete examples of things outside of that? I
> know there was a theoretical example of systemd, but maybe that can be
> coordinated with a mainline update. And the kernel is on an aggressive
> update schedule anyway.

Kubernetes might be removed from the list soon if we can containerize it,
there's extra work to do so but that might simplify the atomic builds a bit.


> My suggestion, at least, is to try this approach with an eye towards
> building the thing you talk about in this next paragraph for post-F23,
> if it turns out to be necessary.
> > Basically this again. If anything I think if Fedora Atomic wants to be
> > it's own product then it should exist slightly differently such that
> > it has it's own set of koji tags, inherits from $current, but
> > subplants the components it needs. This would however be a massive
> > shift because as it turns out that is something that's never been done
> > before and I think this would require a whole new Bodhi stream since
> > it's effectively a new product//release. If it's not Rawhide but it's
> > not Fedora $current, then It's basically it's own Distro that's just
> > based on Fedora and if it were to exist within the Fedora umbrella
> > then I think there need to be policy changes and that's going to be a
> > giant pile of other work to sort out how that's all going to fit.
> --
> Matthew Miller
> <mattdm at>
> Fedora Project Leader
> _______________________________________________
> cloud mailing list
> cloud at
> Fedora Code of Conduct:

More information about the cloud mailing list