Thanks, I'll take the discussion to the GitHub issue. On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Tim Chen <t...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> Hi Dave, > > I actually can't remember is it on the github issue, email list or twitter > feed, but definitely one of them. > > Tim St Clair just brought up Apache on #139, and I'm a +1 on that as well. > > Feel free to chime in on that Github issue you linked. > > Tim > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Dave Lester <daveles...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hey Tim C, >> >> Out of curiosity, which GitHub issue are you referring to when you say >> "Apache >> is one of the options mentioned"? >> >> I don't see it it in the discussion thread for >> https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/139, but I would love to find it >> and +1 the idea. Moving to Apache would be great to see. >> >> Dave >> >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Timothy Chen <t...@mesosphere.io> wrote: >> >>> Hi Tim, >>> >>> Definitely I agree, i think what I am getting at is that it's clear from >>> the conversation that a open governance is what they want from day one. >>> Apache is one of the options mentioned one the Issue, and I believe >>> something along that line is most probable. >>> >>> As long as that's true it won't be as difficult as other options to >>> maintain as an containerizer option for us. >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> On Dec 3, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Tim St Clair <tstcl...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> inline below >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> *From: *"Tim Chen" <t...@mesosphere.io> >>> *To: *u...@mesos.apache.org >>> *Cc: *"dev" <dev@mesos.apache.org> >>> *Sent: *Wednesday, December 3, 2014 11:20:47 AM >>> *Subject: *Re: Rocket >>> >>> Hi Tim, >>> >>> I see you've already commented on the rocket repo about this, and from >>> their messaging it aims to be independent which should be the whole point >>> of the open container spec. >>> >>> I'm all over this like white on rice. >>> >>> >>> I think the best way is just to be involved in the spec early on and >>> continue to do so while we move forward, and we have relationships with the >>> rocket people which should help also being in the loop as well. >>> >>> Relationships alone won't cut it. >>> Friends one day, enemies the next, isn't that the way it worked with >>> Docker...? >>> >>> Governance, such as Apaches model, is of critical importance. >>> >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Tim St Clair <tstcl...@redhat.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Not to put too fine a point on it, but how are folks planning on >>>> establishing governance around the App Container spec? >>>> >>>> https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/193 >>>> >>>> If the mesos community decides to leverage our own, how do we ensure >>>> that we have say in the spec going forwards? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> > From: "Tobias Knaup" <t...@knaup.me> >>>> > To: u...@mesos.apache.org >>>> > Cc: "dev" <dev@mesos.apache.org> >>>> > Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 11:39:58 PM >>>> > Subject: Re: Rocket >>>> > >>>> > An important point to clarify is that two things were announced: a >>>> spec >>>> > (App Container) and an implementation (Rocket). >>>> > Here is the spec: >>>> > https://github.com/coreos/rocket/blob/master/app-container/SPEC.md >>>> > This separation of spec and implementation is important. It makes it >>>> much >>>> > easier to integrate in Mesos. systemd is also just the implementation >>>> of >>>> > the runtime part of the spec that CoreOS chose for Rocket. Mesos can >>>> use >>>> > something else or come with its own. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Dominic Hamon < >>>> dha...@twopensource.com> >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we should >>>> > > instead consider how we can implement their specification. A >>>> community is >>>> > > always healthier when there are multiple implementations of a >>>> > > specification, and through implementing it we may find ways to >>>> improve it. >>>> > > >>>> > > Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and >>>> provide >>>> > > value through a C++ implementation. >>>> > > >>>> > > I've created a JIRA ticket >>>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162 to track any >>>> thoughts on >>>> > > this. >>>> > > >>>> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen <t...@mesosphere.io> >>>> wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > >> Hi all, >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket ( >>>> > >> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting >>>> > >> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, >>>> better >>>> > >> security and image specification/distribution. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in >>>> Mesos >>>> > >> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been >>>> experiencing some >>>> > >> pain points with our existing containerizers around image >>>> distribution and >>>> > >> security as well. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new >>>> Rocket >>>> > >> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our >>>> existing >>>> > >> isolators into Rocket runtime. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Like to learn what you all think, >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Thanks! >>>> > >> >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > -- >>>> > > Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter >>>> > > *There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.* >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Cheers, >>>> Timothy St. Clair >>>> Red Hat Inc. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Cheers, >>> Timothy St. Clair >>> Red Hat Inc. >>> >>> >> >
