On 03/08/2016 06:20 AM, Tomas Kral wrote: > On 03/08/2016 12:36 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote: >> > >> > We met earlier today to discuss the readiness of the Nulecule spec. This >> > was >> > brought about because we were in motion to release a 1.0.0 release of >> > Atomic App >> > because we have been in feature freeze/test mode for a while. >> > >> > Here are some important notes from the meeting: >> > - We have thusly concentrated on the deployment story and not enough on the >> > developer story. We need to take a new look at the spec from a developer >> > point >> > of view. >> > - We would like to have more "users" attempt to create Apps so we can >> > fully vet >> > Atomic App and Nulecule Spec before we approach 1.0.0 status. >> > - We realize that soon we will need to make sure that we support (for some >> > time) >> > the existing Nulecule spec version that Atomic App supports. We have a >> > short >> > amount of time before that to change the spec, but even after that point >> > we have >> > freedom to change the spec as long as we support backwards compat. >> > - Development of Atomic App isn't tied to the ADB/CDK because Atomic App >> > isn't >> > baked into the ADB and is delivered via a registry. So we may be more >> > free to >> > iterate faster than previously thought. >> > >> > Conclusions: >> > - We will leave the current versioning scheme in place for now; continue >> > on with >> > 0.4.x, 0.5.x and so on.. Before we make any large changes to versioning >> > we >> > should also discuss with marketing to make sure we have a good message. >> > - For the time being we will go back to heavy/fundamental development >> > instead of >> > just bug-fixing so we can attempt to address the issues with the spec >> > and with >> > the developer story. >> > >> > Open Questions: >> > - Do we need to continue to be generic and support all providers or should >> > we tailor >> > our solution to Kubernetes/OpenShift? > I can see benefits of tailoring our solution to Kubernetes/OpenShift. > But I'm also afraid that in this case we might end up with something > only slightly different than OpenShift templates. > > >
Kube needs something like OpenShift templates & Nulecule, so if they merge and become 'Native' supported in Kube that is a good thing. See: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/11492
_______________________________________________ Container-tools mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/container-tools
