Re: [Container-tools] VDI + CDK

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 >

Re: [Container-tools] [Devtools] openshift is way too permissive in the CDK/ADB

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,

[Container-tools] Parameter hinting labels

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]

Re: [Container-tools] oc export

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: > > > > > >

Re: [Container-tools] Rethinking Nulecule

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 >

Re: [Container-tools] Rethinking Nulecule

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

Re: [Container-tools] Namespace for demo images

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

Re: [Container-tools] Atomic App / Nulecule Spec Readiness for 1.0.0: we still have some work to do

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 > >

Re: [Container-tools] Start merging atomicapp features to master!

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