Re: [atomic-devel] atomic push or atomic upload

[Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh redhat com>]

On 08/03/2015 02:09 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> 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
Right, I was intending to alias upload to push if we decide to change.

I don't see the behaviour varying from docker push much, currently
we just support --pulp and --satellite, (Hopefully not too many more)