Well we probably need you guys playing with this, if there is a problem so we can figure out how to fix it.
On 02/10/2016 03:22 AM, Muayyad AlSadi wrote: > my concern is the built in DNS in new docker 1.10 and how to disable > it to use the one provided by freeipa and dnsmasq backed by consul or > skydns > > > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Jason Brooks <jbro...@redhat.com > <mailto:jbro...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Josh Berkus" <jber...@redhat.com <mailto:jber...@redhat.com>> > > To: atomic-devel@projectatomic.io > <mailto:atomic-devel@projectatomic.io> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 12:14:01 AM > > Subject: [atomic-devel] Concerns about pushing Docker 1.10 into > Fedora23 > > > > Folks, > > > > We were discussing the changes in Docker 1.10 at DevConf and > became very > > concerned about the consequences of pushing it into Fedora23. I > don't think > > that users will be prepared for the upgrade process for existing > images. > > Basically, I can see two things happening to create some really > unhappy > > users: (1) most of them ignore the update notice and then have a > long outage > > when they restart Docker, or (2) some of them run the migrator, > and for > > users with dozens of images it makes their system unresponsive > until it's > > done. There's also a bunch of API changes, which *supposedly* > don't break > > backwards compatibility, but has anyone tested for this? > > > > Is it worth considering holding 1.10 back until Fedora24? > > F24 is set to release on June 7, docker makes a major release each > three months or so, and 1.9 is already three months old... > > I don't think it's possible to fully shield users from the fast dev > pace of docker while keeping fedora reasonably up-to-date. > > Docker just moves fast, we should kick our testing into a higher > gear to keep up. > > Jason > > > > > > -- > > Josh Berkus > > Project Atomic > > Red Hat > > > > > >
