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

Re: [atomic-devel] Parallel installing 1.9 and 1.10

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Eric Paris wrote:

> At this point there is no known reason (at least to me) not to release
> 1.10 because of kube.

Is there anything tracking this outside of
?  I need to try it myself.

> So I don't see a real reason to need 2 versions installed from a user
> story point of view. And the fact that there is only one version of
> docker supported in a fedora release at a time leads bolsters my
> feelings like this is not something a user would need/want. In which
> case it makes me ask 'obviously I'm missing the point, why is someone
> asking for this?'

I think beyond Kube, there were OSBS issues with 1.10 (the V2 transition
is a lot more traumatic there) that are mostly sorted now.

> I can only assume it is because of the pain involved in changing the
> version of a package when using rpmostree as a developer. Which makes
> me ask, 'should we be using atomic in this case?' When the explicit use
> case is about quickly iterating between two versions of packages and
> rpmostree is about entire images, it just seems like we have an
> impeedance mismatch which maybe shouldn't be 'solved'...

It's like I saw this comment coming in my crystal ball:

Give it a try! =)

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