On 08/03/2015 02:09 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > On 07/29/2015 12:05 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote: >> Anyone have thoughts on this? > Is this going to have identical behavior to "docker push" long-term or > is there any chance that it's going to diverge meaningfully from what > one would expect with `docker push`? > > If we're giving ourselves room for the command to do things that would > be surprising / different from `docker push` then I'd stick with `atomic > upload` rather than `atomic push`. (We could also alias push to upload?) > > I'm reluctant to rename things once they're in the wild, though the odds > that it's going to inconvenience a lot of users so soon is probably small. > > Best, > > jzb Right, I was intending to alias upload to push if we decide to change.
I don't see the behaviour varying from docker push much, currently we just support --pulp and --satellite, (Hopefully not too many more)
