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 release number it was built from). Containers will be > built on top of the base runtime and depending on the modules > requirements, a module may select different generations of the base > runtime and since there's plans to distribute modules (at least > optionally) as containers, we'll likely need a way to distinguish > between "generations" of the base runtime upon which a container was > built. *nod* I guess that makes the question mostly whether the generation is something users need to fundamentally care about, or an insider detail. > Of course, that might not be something we need to worry about in the > event that the modularity metadata handles all the book keeping and > just maps the appropriate information to a specific docker image tag. > If that ends up being the case, I'd almost just say drop the first > httpd and make it registry.fedoraproject.org/httpd:latest I'd hate to make it top-level simply because modularity forgot to handle this because we forgot to tell them... > Thoughts? Should we bring this to the modularity group for review? Yes. Oh, for @-mentions in email. I'll find someone and bug them. -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list -- cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to cloud-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
