Re: [atomic-devel] Concerns about pushing Docker 1.10 into Fedora23

2016-02-09 Thread Josh Berkus
On 02/09/2016 09:46 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: On 2016-02-09 09:14, Josh Berkus wrote: 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

Re: [atomic-devel] Concerns about pushing Docker 1.10 into Fedora23

2016-02-09 Thread Jeroen van Meeuwen
On 2016-02-09 09:14, Josh Berkus wrote: 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

Re: [atomic-devel] Concerns about pushing Docker 1.10 into Fedora23

2016-02-09 Thread Joe Brockmeier
On 02/09/2016 10:57 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > One thing we *could* do is put it in updates testing in F23 but _never_ > put it into stable there. That would allow people who want it to opt in > to that branch on F23 if they need it. I'm definitely good with it being in updates testing for F23

[atomic-devel] Concerns about pushing Docker 1.10 into Fedora23

2016-02-09 Thread Josh Berkus
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

Re: [atomic-devel] Concerns about pushing Docker 1.10 into Fedora23

2016-02-09 Thread Joe Brockmeier
On 02/09/2016 09:14 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > > Is it worth considering holding 1.10 back until Fedora24? We should do so by policy, if I understand correctly. This is not a compatible change and users can't easily roll back. We should freeze F23 on 1.10, and the two-week atomic releases should

Re: [atomic-devel] Concerns about pushing Docker 1.10 into Fedora23

2016-02-09 Thread Jeroen van Meeuwen
On 2016-02-09 09:46, Josh Berkus wrote: On 02/09/2016 09:46 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: With "the system being unresponsive" you mean "Docker is unresponsive" and perhaps even "system under high load", right? Correct. I would vote in favour of pushing Docker 1.10 to Fedora 23, with some

Re: [atomic-devel] Concerns about pushing Docker 1.10 into Fedora23

2016-02-09 Thread Matthew Miller
On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 10:17:20AM +0100, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > > Is it worth considering holding 1.10 back until Fedora24? > We should do so by policy, if I understand correctly. This is not a > compatible change and users can't easily roll back. We should freeze F23 > on 1.10, and the two-week

Re: [atomic-devel] Concerns about pushing Docker 1.10 into Fedora23

2016-02-09 Thread Daniel J Walsh
A couple of things. I like the current plan on not pushing docker-1.10 directly into Fedora 23 until it gets plenty of testing. I do not believe it is a one way street. My understanding is that the both labels of content get left in the image so if you roll back to docker-1.9 it will continue

Re: [atomic-devel] Concerns about pushing Docker 1.10 into Fedora23

2016-02-09 Thread Antonio Murdaca
Hey Jeremy, yes, I already posted on the ml with more info about that, re-quoting: we've packaged docker-1.10 spec to run the migrator before the update so, hopefully users won't have to wait for so long. I know it's somehow risky tough. Right now docker-1.10 with the migrator is in F24 for ppl