Sweet. And yeah, as Laurent mentioned in the other email, it's the weekend. Setting dates for this kind of stuff is hard to do, I just work on this in my free time. It's done when it's done.
I also agree that s6 is *not* a docker-specific tool, nor should it be. I'm thankful that Laurent's willing to listen to any ideas we might have re: s6 development, but like I said, the goal is *not* "make s6 a docker-specific tool" There's still a few high-level decisions to be made, too, before we really start any work: 1. Goals: * Are we going to make a series of s6 baseimages (like one based on Ubuntu, another on CentOS, Alpine, and so on)? * Should we pick a base distro and focus on creating a series of platform-oriented images, aimed more at developers (ie, a PHP image, a NodeJS image, etc)? * Or should be focus on creating a series of service-oriented images, ie, an image for running GitLab, an image for running an XMPP server, etc? Figuring out the overall, high-level focus early will be really helpful in the long run. Options 2 and 3 are somewhat related - you can't really get to 3 (create service-oriented images) without getting through 2 (make platform-oriented images) anyway. It's not like a goal would be set in stone, either. If more guys want to get on board and help, we could alway sit down and re-evaluate. With more manpower, you could get into doing a whole series of distro-based, service-oriented images (ie, a Ubuntu XMPP server as well as an Alpine XMPP server). But given we're just a few guys, setting a straightforward small focus is probably the way to go. I would vote for either creating a series of baseimages, oriented towards other image-makers, or pick Alpine as a base, and focus on making small and efficient service-oriented images (ie, a 10MB XMPP service, something like that) aimed at sysadmins/users. But I'm open to any of those options, or others, so long as it's within the realm of possibility for just a few people working in their free time. 1. Should be form a GitHub org, and what should it be called? I vote yes, I'll go ahead and make it if you want. For the org name, I was thinking about starting a series of Alpine images aimed at users (like I said, 10MB chat service) under the org name "micro-d" (as in, Micro Docker containers), already. If that's the focus we go with, then that's probably a pretty OK name. If we go with doing a series of simple, easy-to-use baseimages aimed at other imagemakers, then probably something like "simple-d" (Simple Docker containers). Again, open to suggestions, those are just my initial ideas. The one thing I would advise against is using s6 in the name, since that would imply it's a project under the skarnet.org umbrella, which I don't think this is. It's outside that scope. We can promote how much we love s6 all we want in the docs, and blog posts, and so on, but we *shouldn't* do things like call our init "s6-init", name the image "s6-alpine", stuff like that. Once we figure out the high-level goals, we can set out a few more structural-type things. -John