On Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 09:04 AM, Lalatendu Mohanty wrote: > > I still think we are overloading the atomic name. The idea of atomic > host
FWIW I nearly always now correct people to "Atomic Host" when they mean that exactly because there are a number of things under the brand now. > 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. Well, it is related in that we have a number of things we would like to release as containers alongside the host. And Atomic Reactor/Dock is a good candidate for release engineering infrastructure inside the distribution.
