[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [atomic-devel] hosting dwalsh's docker repo (upstream + rh patches) on @projectatomic github

On 10/08/2015 05:53 AM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:

On 10/07/2015 12:22 PM, Colin Walters wrote:

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015, at 05:45 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:

Yes although I don't want to transfer, since I still want my
rhatdan/docker.  But we could create a docker fork on atomic.
I noticed https://github.com/projectatomic/docker
exists now, cool.

Are there any policies or procedures for PRs for these branches?
What patches are acceptable to carry?
All patches must be sent up stream.  We will only carry patches that we
deem necessary for running an enterprise ready docker engine.
As well as bug fixes that have not made it into a release package.

We might carry some patches which have been rejected by docker upstream,
if we feel that our customers demand it.
The use of alternative registries, the ability to block registries are
examples of this.
We are carrying a patch to do logging and auditing of activity at the
docker daemon.

We carry the secrets patch to allow RHEL7 content to be used within a
We carry a patch to block accidental pushing of rhel content to docker.io

We carry a patch to allow us to run tests on Centos, RHEL7 and Fedora
docker containers rather then always running tests only on Ubuntu

We carry a patch required by the LVM/Devicemapper engineers to tell
customers that they are running with a loopback device, to help prevent
from accidentally running docker in production with loopback.

These are really good explanations. Would it make sense to update the README of each branch with a list of the patches and justifications like the ones you just gave here?

- Dusty

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]