[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
- From: Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh redhat com>
- To: Dusty Mabe <dusty dustymabe com>, atomic-devel projectatomic io
- Subject: Re: [atomic-devel] hosting dwalsh's docker repo (upstream + rh patches) on @projectatomic github
- Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 06:44:23 -0400
On 10/08/2015 08:41 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>
>
> On 10/08/2015 05:53 AM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>>
>> On 10/07/2015 12:22 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> 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
>> container.
>> 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
>> containers.
>>
>> We carry a patch required by the LVM/Devicemapper engineers to tell
>> customers that they are running with a loopback device, to help prevent
>> customers
>> 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
>
>
>
Yes, and I think we need to publish a blog about this. I will do this
next week when I get back to the office.
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]