On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 08:55:33AM -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
>> The main thing that concern I have is that with modularity there is
>> going to be a concept of "base runtime" which will have a "generation"
>>
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 08:55:33AM -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
> The main thing that concern I have is that with modularity there is
> going to be a concept of "base runtime" which will have a "generation"
> associated with it (most likely, the "generation" will share a name
> with the Fedora
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Adam Miller
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Matthew Miller
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 04:43:55PM -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
>>> > I'm not sure we should put base distro and distro version
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 04:43:55PM -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
>> > I'm not sure we should put base distro and distro version as the
>> > primary distinguisher. As a user, it's the application (and possibly
>> >
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 04:43:55PM -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
> > I'm not sure we should put base distro and distro version as the
> > primary distinguisher. As a user, it's the application (and possibly
> > major version of that application) that I care about. How about just:
> >
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:06:41AM -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
>> For layered images, we would follow something similar to:
>>
>> registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora/24/httpd:latest
>>
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:06:41AM -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
> For layered images, we would follow something similar to:
>
> registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora/24/httpd:latest
> registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora/24/httpd:2.4
> registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora/24/httpd:2.4.23
I'm not
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 09/29/2016 03:03 PM, Adam Miller wrote:
>> Hello all,
>> I was recently discussing some items around docker layered image
>> release process in the future with Randy (bowlofeggs) and Patrick
>> (puiterwijk). As a
On 09/29/2016 06:03 PM, Adam Miller wrote:
> Hello all,
> I was recently discussing some items around docker layered image
> release process in the future with Randy (bowlofeggs) and Patrick
> (puiterwijk). As a side effect of our discussion there were two
> questions I wanted to ask of the
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 05:03:57PM -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
> 1) Do we want to maintain docker images for every Fedora Release or do
> we want to focus only on latest? (i.e. - do we want to maintain them
> like we do rpms or take a different position)
Since (for now at least) these images will
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 04:45:08PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Take everyone's favorite destruction test case, PostgreSQL. For
> Postgres, replication doesn't necessarily work between major versions,
> so once we put out a major version we need to keep it out.
>
> If we have a PostgreSQL-9.5.3
On 09/29/2016 03:03 PM, Adam Miller wrote:
> Hello all,
> I was recently discussing some items around docker layered image
> release process in the future with Randy (bowlofeggs) and Patrick
> (puiterwijk). As a side effect of our discussion there were two
> questions I wanted to ask of the
Hello all,
I was recently discussing some items around docker layered image
release process in the future with Randy (bowlofeggs) and Patrick
(puiterwijk). As a side effect of our discussion there were two
questions I wanted to ask of the Cloud WG:
1) Do we want to maintain docker images for
13 matches
Mail list logo