On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:27:58AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 9:09 PM, Adam Miller > <maxamillion@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hello all, > > I wanted to bring up the topic of the future of Fedora's Layered > > Image Build System (FLIBS) as it pertains to OpenShift as a backend > > technology that FLIBS is built on top of. > > > > TL;DR - Does anyone care if we move FLIBS to be run on OpenShift > > Container Platform instead of OpenShift Origin in the future? > > > > OpenShift itself comes in two forms. The first is the upstream > > OpenShift Origin which is very rapidly releasing which has no official > > support for older releases (no N-1 support), so it would require a > > fresh roll out every three months. The second is the Red Hat OpenShift > > Container Platform which is the productized version based on OpenShift > > Origin, follows a slower release cadence, and offers longer life > > support per release than Origin. I would like to note for the sake of > > posterity for the mailing list thread that both of these are Open > > Source. > > > > I outline these points in order to ask if there is any preference from > > the Fedora Infrastructure Team on which "edition" of OpenShift that > > FLIBS is built on top of in the future. I ask this because currently > > FLIBS is built on OpenShift Origin which has already proven difficult > > to keep up with latest releases since I'm currently the only one > > working on FLIBS and it's not the only thing I am actively working on > > at any one point in time and I would like to move to OpenShift > > Container Platform in the future. > > +1 we use RHEL and other downstream of the community in other places > within the infrastructure too for various reasons, I think it makes > perfect sense to move to a platform that has less churn and active > support so that people, whether it be Infra team or yourself, have > more time to work on enhancements to the service that sits on top > rather than just churning to maintain the underlying infrastructure. And with my manager hat on, +1 here. Not meaning, "yes, we must do this." Rather, as someone who monitors how cycles get spent, I mean it makes sense as a change that frees up those cycles for more productive, net-new work. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
