Quoting Lalatendu Mohanty (2015-07-06 14:36:11) > On 07/03/2015 05:58 PM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: > > Hi all, > > on behalf of development team of OSBS (OpenShift Build Service), I'd like > > to propose moving three of our projects under projectatomic org on Github: > > > > https://github.com/DBuildService/atomic-reactor > > https://github.com/DBuildService/osbs-client > > https://github.com/DBuildService/ansible-osbs > > > > To describe the projects a bit: > > - atomic-reactor is a Python library with command line interface for > > building docker images. For a complete set of features, see [1] > > - osbs-client is a Python module and command line client for OpenShift > > Build Service. > > - ansible-osbs is an ansible playbook to deploy OpenShift with > > atomic-reactor ready to build images. > > > > To describe the whole system more: Builds are submitted through osbs-client > > by users/other tools. osbs-client communicates with OpenShift. OpenShift > > has an image with atomic-reactor installed inside, which is used to build > > requested images. > > > > Hope this makes sense and thanks for considering. Questions are welcome! > > > > I have couple of questions/concerns. But these should not stop moving > the projects under projectatomic. > > 1. Why the name is "atomic-reactor"? I could not find the correlation > atomic and atomic-reactor. IMO atomic-reactor should produce atomic images.
Ah, I can see the confusion. The original proposal was just "reactor". It should have reflected that atoms (containers/images) are being processed inside the reactor. Unfortunately, there are multiple projects named reactor [3] [4] so we added the atomic prefix. > 2. As of now we have overload of atomic name as prefix to many projects > e.g. atomicapp , atomicapp-builder [1], atomic command and atomic > host. So we are already having difficulty explaining the difference > between those. So if we can avoid the atomic as the prefix unless it is > really required, it would be good. I sort of agree here. On the other hand, if they have "atomic" in their name, you know that they are related to linux containers, Atomic Host, etc. > 3. What is the correlation between atomic-reactor and atomic-builder [1] ? atomic builder uses atomic reactor (we are in a process of renaming reactor from its former name, dock) [5] [6] atomic builder doesn't require CLI of atomic reactor, it is importing reactor from python's sitelib (your $PATH won't be bloated) > 4. Does sti [2] uses atomic-reactor? is there any relation between these > two? They try to solve a similar issue: assemble images * reactor has a set of pre-build and post-build plugins (see it as `docker build` with hooks) * source-to-image, on the other hand, is a tool for assembling images by injecting source code into a docker image Right now the two projects don't interact. > [1] https://github.com/bkabrda/atomicapp-builder/ > [2] https://github.com/openshift/source-to-image > > Thanks, > Lala > [3] https://pypi.python.org/pypi/reactor [4] https://github.com/reactor/reactor [5] https://github.com/bkabrda/atomicapp-builder/blob/master/atomicapp-builder.spec#L34 [6] https://github.com/bkabrda/atomicapp-builder/blob/master/atomicapp_builder/builder.py#L32 Regards, ~~ Tomáš Tomeček Software Engineer Developer Experience UTC+2 (CEST)