On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Pete Muir wrote:
> Do we have any recommendations for how to run the CDK in a VDI
> (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_virtualization#Virtual_desktop_infrastructure
> )
> set up - where thousands of developers connect to servers and run
>
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>
>
> On 05/18/2016 07:18 AM, Aslak Knutsen wrote:
> > I think most teams at the Brno F2F were struggling with this. It works
> locally, but semi-obscure failures when pushed 'live'. And out of the 30 RH
> engineers there,
I proposed[1] a method for enabling tools to generate parameterization
based on Dockerfile labels. The idea is that tools like the openshift CLI
could generated a parameterized template based on these values. It's a
simple approach. Please comment there.
[1]
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Tomas Kral <tk...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 03/15/2016 02:04 PM, Aaron Weitekamp wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 6:20 AM, Tomas Kral <tk...@redhat.com
> > <mailto:tk...@redhat.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Ratnadeep Debnath wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Till now, Nulecule's focus has been to be a spec to package and ship
> nested, composable multi container applications. Well, it helps us to
> focus on a smaller problem and solve it well. This also keeps
>
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Burr Sutter wrote:
> I like the proposal! :-)
>
>
I agree we should encourage adoption, zero barriers, etc, but I think we
should go in the other direction with the spec:
- focus on the high-level definition of the application and service
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 6:29 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Indeed Scott. Just started and this might be more a mid-term feature.
> > First we need to fix some other items. Just wanted to mention that I'm
> > considering this as an RFE and have added to my planning board.
>
We
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 6:20 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
> >
Per Jez Humble [1] I would recommend PRs merge to master and direct users
to stable releases.
[1]
http://continuousdelivery.com/2011/07/on-dvcs-continuous-integration-and-feature-branches/
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Charlie Drage wrote:
> I'm fine with feature