Re: SLA of Copr and changes in future

2016-03-20 Thread Stephen John Smoogen
On 16 March 2016 at 12:42, Michal Novotny wrote: > I must agree that "fedorainfracloud" also sounds to me like the more stable > variant out of the two (without any previous historical knowledge). > Like all bikesheds.. we went through a lot of different names to try and convey

Re: SLA of Copr and changes in future

2016-03-19 Thread Michal Novotny
I must agree that "fedorainfracloud" also sounds to me like the more stable variant out of the two (without any previous historical knowledge). clime On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:51:21 +0100 > Michael J Gruber

Re: SLA of Copr and changes in future

2016-03-19 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:51:21 +0100 Michael J Gruber wrote: > Miroslav Suchy venit, vidit, dixit 14.03.2016 23:01: > > There is ongoing discussion on Fedora Infrastructure mailing list, > > that only fully supported services should remain in > > fedoraproject.org domain.

Re: SLA of Copr and changes in future

2016-03-15 Thread Michael J Gruber
Miroslav Suchy venit, vidit, dixit 14.03.2016 23:01: > There is ongoing discussion on Fedora Infrastructure mailing list, that > only fully supported services should remain in fedoraproject.org domain. > All experimental services should be moved to fedorainfracloud.org. > Recently there was

SLA of Copr and changes in future

2016-03-14 Thread Miroslav Suchy
We are discussing in Fedora Infrastructure about level of SLA of some services. And mainly because of Copr. There are some other services e.g. Jenkins, Taiga. However Copr is probably most popular. Copr service was from begging meant as somehow beta version and did not pass all the requirements