<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 03/08/2016 06:20 AM, Tomas Kral wrote: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:56DEB56C.7090908@redhat.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> On 03/08/2016 12:36 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;"> <pre wrap="">> > We met earlier today to discuss the readiness of the Nulecule spec. This was > brought about because we were in motion to release a 1.0.0 release of Atomic App > because we have been in feature freeze/test mode for a while. > > Here are some important notes from the meeting: > - We have thusly concentrated on the deployment story and not enough on the > developer story. We need to take a new look at the spec from a developer point > of view. > - We would like to have more "users" attempt to create Apps so we can fully vet > Atomic App and Nulecule Spec before we approach 1.0.0 status. > - We realize that soon we will need to make sure that we support (for some time) > the existing Nulecule spec version that Atomic App supports. We have a short > amount of time before that to change the spec, but even after that point we have > freedom to change the spec as long as we support backwards compat. > - Development of Atomic App isn't tied to the ADB/CDK because Atomic App isn't > baked into the ADB and is delivered via a registry. So we may be more free to > iterate faster than previously thought. > > Conclusions: > - We will leave the current versioning scheme in place for now; continue on with > 0.4.x, 0.5.x and so on.. Before we make any large changes to versioning we > should also discuss with marketing to make sure we have a good message. > - For the time being we will go back to heavy/fundamental development instead of > just bug-fixing so we can attempt to address the issues with the spec and with > the developer story. > > Open Questions: > - Do we need to continue to be generic and support all providers or should we tailor > our solution to Kubernetes/OpenShift? </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">I can see benefits of tailoring our solution to Kubernetes/OpenShift. But I'm also afraid that in this case we might end up with something only slightly different than OpenShift templates. </pre> </blockquote> Kube needs something like OpenShift templates & Nulecule, so if they merge and become 'Native' supported in Kube that is a good thing. See: <meta charset="utf-8"> <a href="https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/11492" style="text-decoration:none;" id="docs-internal-guid-9acad1b9-577b-6b62-ce8b-bf256dd82098"><span style="font-size:14.666666666666666px;font-family:Arial;color:#1155cc;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:underline;vertical-align:baseline;">https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/11492</a> </body> </html>