Re: [atomic-devel] Moving osbs/atomic-reactor under projectatomic org on Github

[Tomas Tomecek <ttomecek redhat com>]

Quoting Lalatendu Mohanty (2015-07-06 14:36:11)
> On 07/03/2015 05:58 PM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > on behalf of development team of OSBS (OpenShift Build Service), I'd like to propose moving three of our projects under projectatomic org on Github:
> >
> > https://github.com/DBuildService/atomic-reactor
> > https://github.com/DBuildService/osbs-client
> > https://github.com/DBuildService/ansible-osbs
> >
> > To describe the projects a bit:
> > - atomic-reactor is a Python library with command line interface for building docker images. For a complete set of features, see [1]
> > - osbs-client is a Python module and command line client for OpenShift Build Service.
> > - ansible-osbs is an ansible playbook to deploy OpenShift with atomic-reactor ready to build images.
> >
> > To describe the whole system more: Builds are submitted through osbs-client by users/other tools. osbs-client communicates with OpenShift. OpenShift has an image with atomic-reactor installed inside, which is used to build requested images.
> >
> > Hope this makes sense and thanks for considering. Questions are welcome!
> >
> 
> I have couple of questions/concerns. But these should not stop moving 
> the projects under projectatomic.
> 
> 1.  Why the name is "atomic-reactor"? I could not find the correlation 
> atomic and atomic-reactor. IMO atomic-reactor should produce atomic images.

Ah, I can see the confusion. The original proposal was just "reactor". It should
have reflected that atoms (containers/images) are being processed inside the
reactor. Unfortunately, there are multiple projects named reactor [3] [4] so we
added the atomic prefix.

> 2. As of now we have overload of atomic name as prefix to many projects 
> e.g. atomicapp , atomicapp-builder [1], atomic command and atomic 
> host.   So we are already having difficulty explaining the difference 
> between those. So if we can avoid the atomic as the prefix unless it is 
> really required, it would be good.

I sort of agree here. On the other hand, if they have "atomic" in their name,
you know that they are related to linux containers, Atomic Host, etc.

> 3.  What is the correlation between atomic-reactor and atomic-builder [1] ?

atomic builder uses atomic reactor (we are in a process of renaming reactor from
its former name, dock) [5] [6]

atomic builder doesn't require CLI of atomic reactor, it is importing reactor
from python's sitelib (your $PATH won't be bloated)

> 4. Does sti [2] uses atomic-reactor? is there any relation between these 
> two?

They try to solve a similar issue: assemble images

 * reactor has a set of pre-build and post-build plugins (see it as `docker
   build` with hooks)

 * source-to-image, on the other hand, is a tool for assembling images by
   injecting source code into a docker image

Right now the two projects don't interact.

> [1] https://github.com/bkabrda/atomicapp-builder/
> [2] https://github.com/openshift/source-to-image
> 
> Thanks,
> Lala
> 

[3] https://pypi.python.org/pypi/reactor
[4] https://github.com/reactor/reactor
[5] https://github.com/bkabrda/atomicapp-builder/blob/master/atomicapp-builder.spec#L34
[6] https://github.com/bkabrda/atomicapp-builder/blob/master/atomicapp_builder/builder.py#L32


Regards,
~~
Tomáš Tomeček
Software Engineer
Developer Experience
UTC+2 (CEST)