Re: [atomic-devel] Fedora Container Release

[Dusty Mabe <dusty dustymabe com>]

On 03/19/2018 04:30 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018, at 3:38 PM, Clement Verna wrote:
> 
>> So if you maintain a container could you please build your container
>> against the f28 and master branch.

Everyone please keep in mind that Clement is a new team member and is inheriting
this process. He has graciously stepped up to help us improve the state of affairs
and has fixed quite a few things even within the last few weeks. Clement, as you 
learn more please do question the existing philosophy (like Colin has done below)
and let's work together to improve it.

> 
> There's a fairly important deeper question here: Do we really
> want to build all of these containers against each fedora release?
> 
> Does anyone *care* what underlying base image is used for e.g.
> waiverdb?

I don't think so as long as it is maintained.

> 
> I understand that we're sort of doing this just because that's
> what we do with RPMs...but is that the right thing?

I think with modularity there was going to be the option to have 
images that weren't tied to fedora releases. Does that help?

> 
> It feels like for most containers we should really only ship
> them based on the current "stable" fedora?
> 
> I can imagine it being useful to build the containers just
> so we can test them for the future when the N+1 becomes the "stable" N,
> but I'm not sure if we'd really want to highlight them much?

+1. We would want to be able to test for f(n+1)

> 
> Also I simply do not understand why we're requiring a human to
> initiate builds.

I'm sure it's probably because our tooling lacks some optimizations.
Clement, if you see opportunities to improve this, let us know!