Dear Jeff,

On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 08:25:47AM -0500, Jeffrey Burke wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Nick Coghlan <> wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> Excerpts from Amit Saha's message of 2014-08-20 14:04 +10:00:
> [...]
> > Yep, lets start with some permissive "you can do whatever you want" 
> > defaults (it's a test harness after all), and if we get requests to be able 
> > to run tests in a locked down container instead... well, part of the reason 
> > for giving the default container lots of power is so people can start their 
> > *own* locked down containers if they want them. If people want the harness 
> > container to be more configurable, they're gonna have to be *real* 
> > persuasive in order to successfully argue that starting a second container 
> > doesn't make more sense :)
> >
> Hi All,
>  I wanted to see if I could revive this thread. It has been several
> years now. We still have two harnesses in Beaker. Roman do you have a
> roadmap of the Beaker Harness plan.
I don't specifically know the contents of that conversation. Perhaps Dan
can give me a hint if I'm on a wrong track here.

Our current idea is to make restraint the default harness for RHEL8+ and
therefore slowly phase out beah (as the default). That includes getting
restraint to achieve feature parity with beah. I don't have an exact
time frame for this yet and how we would pull this off, since I expect
there are possibly higher priority items coming up.

Does that answer your question or at least goes in the right direction?

Kind Regards,
Róman Joost
Senior Software Engineer, Products & Technologies Operations (Brisbane)
Red Hat

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Beaker-devel mailing list --
To unsubscribe send an email to

Reply via email to