It is in rawhide now.
On 02/10/2016 11:46 AM, Muayyad AlSadi wrote:
> Well we probably need you guys playing with this, if there is a problem so we can figure out how to fix it.
Drop me an email when it's pushed to rawhide.
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016, 4:12 PM Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh redhat com> wrote:
Well we probably need you guys playing with this, if there is a problem so we can figure out how to fix it.
On 02/10/2016 03:22 AM, Muayyad AlSadi wrote:
my concern is the built in DNS in new docker 1.10 and how to disable it to use the one provided by freeipa and dnsmasq backed by consul or skydns
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Jason Brooks <jbrooks redhat com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Josh Berkus" <jberkus redhat com>
> To: atomic-devel projectatomic io
> Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 12:14:01 AM
> Subject: [atomic-devel] Concerns about pushing Docker 1.10 into Fedora23
> We were discussing the changes in Docker 1.10 at DevConf and became very
> concerned about the consequences of pushing it into Fedora23. I don't think
> that users will be prepared for the upgrade process for existing images.
> Basically, I can see two things happening to create some really unhappy
> users: (1) most of them ignore the update notice and then have a long outage
> when they restart Docker, or (2) some of them run the migrator, and for
> users with dozens of images it makes their system unresponsive until it's
> done. There's also a bunch of API changes, which *supposedly* don't break
> backwards compatibility, but has anyone tested for this?
> Is it worth considering holding 1.10 back until Fedora24?
F24 is set to release on June 7, docker makes a major release each
three months or so, and 1.9 is already three months old...
I don't think it's possible to fully shield users from the fast dev
pace of docker while keeping fedora reasonably up-to-date.
Docker just moves fast, we should kick our testing into a higher
gear to keep up.
> Josh Berkus
> Project Atomic
> Red Hat