Add initial roadmap by crosbymichael · Pull Request #230 · opencontainers/runtime-spec

crosbymichael · 2015-10-22T19:02:34Z

This adds the initial roadmap for the project. I compiled this list from various weekly meetings, issues, and discussions on irc.

This is not meant to be an absolute list of things that we will or will not do, just a way for our project to convey what we want to focus on and work towards. I tried to add "owners" based on people who expressed interest in the various topics.

Let me know what you all think. We can use this overall list and break out topics for various milestones.

Signed-off-by: Michael Crosby crosbymichael@gmail.com

wking · 2015-10-22T19:05:39Z

@mrunalp has volunteered for this a few times, most recently here.

Yes but lets have those people comment for themselves and not just sign them up. There are also other people wanting to work on this.
Also lets let everyone review the content before we start nit picking on smaller things.

@crosbymichael We whiteboarded this yesterday and I will create a PR based on that.

@duglin You might want to help out here.

@mrunalp yup - been swamped since the f2f, starting to free up now...

tianon · 2015-10-22T19:14:52Z

On the high level, great big 👍 here.

wking · 2015-10-22T19:22:29Z

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:02:36PM -0700, Michael Crosby wrote:

This is not meant to be an absolute list of things that we will or
will not do, just a way for our project to convey what we want to
focus on and work towards. I tried to add "owners" based on people
who expressed interest in the various topics.

Also candidates for this list:

Separate config entries for device mknod and cgroups 1.
Document container ID charset and uniqueness domain 2.
Seccomp actions with arguments [3](revived via [4]).
Specifying a command-line API [5,6].

I'm happy to help with or take ownership of any of those. If we don't
want to list them in the roadmap, I'm also happy to just continue
discussion on the list.

mrunalp · 2015-10-22T19:24:15Z

I can create a PR based on yesterdays discussions. (will be glad to have @crosbymichael to help out as well)

mrunalp · 2015-10-22T19:28:19Z

Good idea to have this to track the items 👍

mrunalp · 2015-10-22T19:34:23Z

We could probably have a section for exec.
cc: @vishh

vishh · 2015-10-23T00:33:12Z

nit: both seems to imply two goals. I see only one mentioned in this sentence.

hqhq · 2015-10-23T02:57:52Z

Great job 👍 , now we have more clearer view for what we are doing now.
Looking forward to see more detailed milestones. 😄

hqhq · 2015-10-27T09:19:54Z

Is there any plan about network in container?

duglin · 2015-10-27T15:42:15Z

Since I think there may be a difference between the "on-disk" bundle and the "archive" that we create when we try to move a bundle I think it might be best to remove the "on-disk" part of this sentence. For example, an incoming bundle might have the notion of layers, but if the implementation of OCI flattens its down to just a single dir I don't think we want to hash the flatten dir, we want to hash the original bundle and do verification of that.

duglin · 2015-10-27T15:51:55Z

It might be good to add a PR/Issue: ... field to each so that people can easily go from this doc to the issue/PR that has the design discussions.

wking · 2015-10-27T16:12:51Z

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 02:19:56AM -0700, Qiang Huang wrote:

Is there any plan about network in container?

I think the consensus is that Docker-style networking is out-of-scope
[1,2]. I also think an important part of scoping is collecting a list
of frequently requested but out of scope features somewhere
discoverable 3. Maybe we can add that to this roadmap?

 Subject: Do we have any plan for network and storage specs?
Message-Id: <c056925e-6ecf-4457-8c16-7ab34d279604@opencontainers.org>
Subject: Re: Make the container spec unified for both native and virtual machine
Message-ID: <20151007183336.GB28418@odin.tremily.us>

wking · 2015-10-27T16:21:50Z

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 08:51:57AM -0700, Doug Davis wrote:

It might be good to add a PR/Issue: ... field to each so that
people can easily go from this doc to the issue/PR that has the
design discussions.

I think the suggestion is to keep design discussion on the list [1](landed in #86), but +1 to linking to wherever the discussion is
happening.

RobDolinMS · 2015-10-27T22:54:28Z

I'm glad to help on the version schema.

crosbymichael · 2015-10-28T18:53:21Z

Updated based on initial comments. I think any more assignments can be added as PRs after we merge for people who want to work on a topic.

crosbymichael · 2015-11-02T19:51:22Z

ping

mrunalp · 2015-11-02T20:43:33Z

LGTM

vishh · 2015-11-02T21:53:54Z

LGTM. We can iterate starting with this.

vbatts · 2015-11-03T14:51:05Z

a nit on the formating. (view it here), this looks like it's intended to be bold, but it formats like floating asterisks

wking reviewed Oct 22, 2015
View reviewed changes

mrunalp reviewed Oct 22, 2015
View reviewed changes

vishh reviewed Oct 23, 2015
View reviewed changes

Comment threadROADMAP.md Outdated
vishhOct 23, 2015
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nit: both seems to imply two goals. I see only one mentioned in this sentence.

hqhq mentioned this pull request Oct 26, 2015
Port Mapping opencontainers/runc#356
Closed

duglin reviewed Oct 27, 2015
View reviewed changes

RobDolinMS reviewed Oct 27, 2015
View reviewed changes

Comment threadROADMAP.md Outdated
RobDolinMSOct 27, 2015
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm glad to help on the version schema.

crosbymichael force-pushed the roadmap branch from bb10ea3 to a4bd6f8Compare October 28, 2015 18:52

vbatts reviewed Nov 3, 2015
View reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Conversation

crosbymichael commented Oct 22, 2015

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

tianon commented Oct 22, 2015

Uh oh!

wking commented Oct 22, 2015

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mrunalp commented Oct 22, 2015

Uh oh!

mrunalp commented Oct 22, 2015

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

hqhq commented Oct 23, 2015

Uh oh!

hqhq commented Oct 27, 2015

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

duglin commented Oct 27, 2015

Uh oh!

wking commented Oct 27, 2015

Uh oh!

wking commented Oct 27, 2015

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

crosbymichael commented Oct 28, 2015

Uh oh!

crosbymichael commented Nov 2, 2015

Uh oh!

mrunalp commented Nov 2, 2015

Uh oh!

vishh commented Nov 2, 2015

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

10 participants