[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [atomic-devel] Parallel installing 1.9 and 1.10
- From: Colin Walters <walters verbum org>
- To: Eric Paris <eparis redhat com>, Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh redhat com>, atomic-devel projectatomic io
- Subject: Re: [atomic-devel] Parallel installing 1.9 and 1.10
- Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 12:17:01 -0400
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
https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/19720
? 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:
https://lists.projectatomic.io/projectatomic-archives/atomic-devel/2016-March/msg00128.html
Give it a try! =)
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]