On Wed, 2017-02-08 at 09:55 -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> What is going on with this Change Request? Any reason it has not been
> acted on at this point? We are putting changes into our packages
> assuming that this will be allowed.
Given that it is in category "ChangeAcceptedF26", just go
What is going on with this Change Request? Any reason it has not been
acted on at this point? We are putting changes into our packages
assuming that this will be allowed.
On 01/06/2017 05:08 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>>
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:54 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>
>
> On 01/18/2017 03:50 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/06/2017 03:29 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>
>
> On 01/06/2017 03:29 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DockerOverlay2
>
> Can we get this onto the "official looking" page for F26 changes [1]?
Change initiator should add it to category
On 01/06/2017 03:29 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DockerOverlay2
Can we get this onto the "official looking" page for F26 changes [1]?
Do we also need to document in here the different configurations for the
different variants?
Atomic Host vs Server vs
On 01/18/2017 03:50 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 01/06/2017 03:29 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DockerOverlay2
>>
>> Can we get this onto the "official looking" page for F26
On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 11:15:35PM +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Is there a local convention that discussion about containers is using
> top-posting?
>
> "Curious"
Nope. I just posted it without thinking about convention. But if we are
following inline replies on this list, next time
Hi!
Is there a local convention that discussion about containers is using
top-posting?
"Curious"
--alec
On 06/01/17 23:12, Vivek Goyal wrote:
There is more conversation on this issue here.
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/186
I wished there was a single thread of conversation on this
There is more conversation on this issue here.
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/186
I wished there was a single thread of conversation on this instead of
separate conversation for per product variant.
Thanks
Vivek
On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 02:05:49PM -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> Upstream
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DockerOverlay2
Thanks! Note, that you will need to send it for wrangler.
>
>
> On 01/06/2017 02:27 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
>
> Shouldn't this be submitted as a change?
>
> This would
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DockerOverlay2
On 01/06/2017 02:27 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> Shouldn't this be submitted as a change?
>
> This would bring much more visibility to users of Fedora and even outside.
>
> -Igor Gnatenko
>
> On Jan 6, 2017 8:13 PM, "Daniel J Walsh"
Shouldn't this be submitted as a change?
This would bring much more visibility to users of Fedora and even outside.
-Igor Gnatenko
On Jan 6, 2017 8:13 PM, "Daniel J Walsh" wrote:
> Upstream docker is moving to overlay2 by default for its storage. We
> plan on following
On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 02:05:49PM -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> Upstream docker is moving to overlay2 by default for its storage. We
> plan on following suit. Their are some performance advantages of
> overlay2 over devicemapper in memory sharing, which we would like to
> take advantage of.
Upstream docker is moving to overlay2 by default for its storage. We
plan on following suit. Their are some performance advantages of
overlay2 over devicemapper in memory sharing, which we would like to
take advantage of. We now have SELinux support for Overlay file
systems, so the security
14 matches
Mail list logo