Need owner of Atomic 2 Week releases

Michael McGrath mmcgrath at
Fri Nov 13 18:56:25 UTC 2015

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer at> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Dusty Mabe <dusty at> wrote:
>> On 11/13/2015 10:41 AM, Amanda Carter wrote:
>>> Hey folks, creating a separate thread for this longer term discussion.
>>> We're getting ready to release our first 2 week atomic update on Tuesday and
>>> Dusty Mabe has raised 2 potential release blockers that were not part of
>>> automated testing. It's good that he caught them, but it's also a bit of a
>>> stroke of luck. Since there is no official QE for this release, who should
>>> own verifying that there are no release blocking bugs prior to every
>>> automated release and escalating if there are? If no one raises the blocker,
>>> we'll have no way to block the release.
>>> This is something that we need an answer to fairly quickly since we don't
>>> even have confidence that the current release is good other than the current
>>> reports. And we'll be taking this plunge again in just 2 weeks.
>>> Thanks for your attention to this,
>> We should really have a blocker review process for these similar to the ones
>> we have for normal Fedora releases. Primary items that we should be
> Are these 2 week images built from updates that are currently in
> stable, or are they built from updates-testing as well?
> I ask because it matters for things outside of atomic.  The release
> blocker review process works because it catches things _before_ they
> are released for general availability.  If the 2 week atomic images
> are only composed from already stable updates, then the packages are
> already out there in the project otherwise.
> So if you have something "blocker" in an atomic image, you are now
> forced to wait for an update to make it through the entire fedora
> updates process before you can ship your 2 week image.  For something
> like the kernel, that might very well mean you don't ship a 2 week
> image because the fix is not in stable in sufficient time.
> The atomic images might be better served by doing tests on
> updates-testing packages that are included to ensure that blockers
> don't otherwise show up as a surprise.  I would also recommend
> reaching out to the package owners for each important package in
> advance so that the atomic sig is aware of what is planned for updates
> and such.
> josh

I'd also point out that the nature of Atomic's rollback features make
it better suited to less testing in that they can always roll back.
The problem that I see comes if there's a bug that lasts through
several releases causing a fairly bad trust scenario w/ upgrades.

Mike McGrath | mmcgrath at | (312) 660-3547
Atomic | Red Hat Chicago |

More information about the cloud mailing list