[Container-tools] Atomic App / Nulecule Spec Readiness for 1.0.0: we still have some work to do

[Carl Trieloff]

On 03/08/2016 06:20 AM, Tomas Kral wrote:
> On 03/08/2016 12:36 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>> > 
>> > 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?
> 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.
>
>
>


Kube needs something like OpenShift templates & Nulecule, so if they
merge and become 'Native' supported in Kube that is a good thing.

See: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/11492



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/container-tools/attachments/20160308/808c67b8/attachment.htm>