On 07/29/2015 12:05 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > Anyone have thoughts on this? Is this going to have identical behavior to "docker push" long-term or is there any chance that it's going to diverge meaningfully from what one would expect with `docker push`? If we're giving ourselves room for the command to do things that would be surprising / different from `docker push` then I'd stick with `atomic upload` rather than `atomic push`. (We could also alias push to upload?) I'm reluctant to rename things once they're in the wild, though the odds that it's going to inconvenience a lot of users so soon is probably small. Best, jzb -- Joe Brockmeier | Community Team, OSAS jzb redhat com | http://community.redhat.com/ Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature