Also s390x is missing container images: https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora-secondary/releases/28/Container/s390x/images/Fedora-Container-Minimal-Base-28-1.1.s390x.tar.xz

But I'm not 100% sure of the status of that, @sharkcz can confirm if it needs to be added

We should have both Cloud and Container for s390x via https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Atomic_Cloud_and_Docker_images_for_s390x - seems the actual availability depends whether the compose succeeded in creating them, it varies from day to day due the compose infra.

1) We were told Cloud should be there, and it's not since F28 we list Cloud on alt.fpo. Please discuss this internally and then open a dedicated issue if needed.
2) Isn't aarch64 primary? We changed the links the same way also for Beta, we can change them again.
3) Please look at (https://pagure.io/fedora-websites/issue/800#comment-509002)[this] for Conatiner.
4) Same as 1), we can't always change links and deliverables, because a person tells us in one way, and another in another way. I'm happy to change this again, but We need an official request from now on. There are so many images produced, and we always are sort of lost what WG or SIGs want to have. Moreover if we ask we get no or just very hardly an answer before release date, but we get complains when stuff is not as SIGs wanted to have.

Please open a ticket for every single change or section, we can't track a list of things in a generic ticket.

Links are fixed in commit c917d2b.

1) We were told Cloud should be there, and it's not since F28 we list Cloud on alt.fpo. Please discuss this internally and then open a dedicated issue if needed.

Cloud should, the netinst for cloud should not

2) Isn't aarch64 primary? We changed the links the same way also for Beta, we can change them again.

aarch64 for Server/Cloud/Container is primary, Workstation and minimal is not primary. The primary designation is a artifact by artifact not blanket across the entire architecture.

3) Please look at (https://pagure.io/fedora-websites/issue/800#comment-509002)[this] for Conatiner.
4) Same as 1), we can't always change links and deliverables, because a person tells us in one way, and another in another way. I'm happy to change this again, but We need an official request from now on. There are so many images produced, and we always are sort of lost what WG or SIGs want to have. Moreover if we ask we get no or just very hardly an answer before release date, but we get complains when stuff is not as SIGs wanted to have.

What constitutes an "official request"? Please provide the official documentation how to request these changes then. I've always done them via tickets.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/AArch64_Server_Promotion

Please open a ticket for every single change or section, we can't track a list of things in a generic ticket.

We were just told aarch64 is primary, that means images are not anymore in fedora-secondary/, that's all we got. We also cannot look at all changes and guess how the WGs want to have them. I am not aware and personally not much interested in knowing which image of an architecture is primary and which not, that should come from who is working on this.
An official request is a ticket, sure, but not something someone says "should be like that", but as a final decision taken somewhere internally of the SIG or WG. Do you understand what I mean? That's because there are so many images and so many people who want things like this, and then like that, we cannot rely on "should and should not".

Btw, we had the websites in staging for weeks, because there were so many changes for F28. We expected to get at least some feedback before the release date.

@robyduck Is there a framework we can use to make sure that you get the information you need to implement changes in a more clear and timely fashion? Is there a normal schedule for when the websites are in staging that we can make sure we get onto people's calendars?