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 that this was expe
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 wrote:
>
> > Miroslav Suchy venit, v
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. All experimental services
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 suggest
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 Fed
