On 7 July 2015 at 23:04, Lalatendu Mohanty <lmoha...@redhat.com> wrote: > I still think we are overloading the atomic name. The idea of atomic host is > to create a platform for running containers. So if the project has nothing > to do with the platform then I think we should not use the atomic prefix. > > I am seeing people already getting confused between atomic command and > atomic host. And I find it difficult explaining that atomic command is just > an command line and it has no correlation with atomic operation [1]. I find > atomicapp name is fine because those apps should be running on atomic hosts > (ideally) even if they can be run on non-atomic hosts. > > IMHO we should not use atomic prefix unless it is really justifiable.
I think we're already to the point where the "Atomic" name/prefix just refers to "deals with aggregations of closely related subatomic particles, aka RPMs". Thus Atomic Host is managed atomically (through rpm-ostree) and runs atomically updated components (through containers). The "atomic" command installs and runs atomically updated components The "atomicapp" command defines atomically updated components The "atomic-reactor" command creates atomically updated components from their subatomic particles (aka RPMs) So it's a different meaning from the original "atomically upgrade host" meaning, but still a coherent one. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
