On Wed, Jun 15, 2016, at 02:09 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > > To me it is. As I said originally, something that might be > self-evident to the WG likely isn't to someone that is following the > IRC meetings, etc. It's a case of "we said we were going to do thing > X on the list, suddenly on the list we're going to do thing Y > instead." Please note that I did NOT say either thing X or thing Y > were bad or negative. Just surprising. To be clear I don't see this as an "instead", but more of "in addition". I think OpenShift is a *lot* more pretty face to be presenting by default than just raw Kubernetes, and in addition we need to drive the integration story between S2I and Fedora/RPM packaging. Currently a major disconnect with Atomic Host is that Kubernetes is included, whereas many many people want to control the version, or use OpenShift. So we're looking at addressing this by dropping Kube out of the host by default, and supporting installation via system containers (`atomic install --system`) or package layering. > Also, while not explicitly so, Atomic Host (more os-tree) is a > foundation for the work that Workstation is looking at as well. Which > is where some of my surprise comes from I guess. I thought we'd > finally have some cohesion between the Editions, at least at a > fundamentals level. That's still possible I guess. Given the above then, WorkstationOstree is still entirely possible and makes sense. I'm in fact running builds of it right now =) The only crosscutting thing here was - does it make sense to ship the Workstation as Docker images instead, and use Atomic Host? I don't think that's quite technically feasible yet, though with the system containers work we're potentially closer. That's a big discussion. _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
