Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Update runtime-spec package - #140
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Haiyan Meng <hmeng@redhat.com>
haiyanmeng
commented
Jul 21, 2016
wking
commented
Jul 21, 2016
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 01:57:50PM -0700, hmeng-19 wrote:
I'd rather only do this on runtime-spec releases; see #108. |
mrunalp
commented
Jul 21, 2016
@wking We can start tagging releases to runc releases but I don't see why we can't pull in intermediate code to make progress here. |
wking
commented
Jul 21, 2016
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 03:53:05PM -0700, Mrunal Patel wrote:
There are two axes for progress: a. Keeping up with runtime-spec as it evolves, and Historically, ocitools has focused on (a) and neglected (b). As a #108 asks for some kind of plan to move in both directions, and floats |
mrunalp
commented
Jul 21, 2016
@wking I think 1.0 is good point for improving b. Till then there is going to be some churn in the spec and we'll have to pick up updates to make progress here. |
wking
commented
Jul 21, 2016
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 04:20:44PM -0700, Mrunal Patel wrote:
That means you'll hit 1.0 without (ever?) having validated a runtime's |
mrunalp
commented
Jul 21, 2016
We could tag 1.0.0.rc1 and then allow intermediate commits. |
wking
commented
Jul 22, 2016
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 04:54:14PM -0700, Mrunal Patel wrote:
The current ocitools validation does not cover runtime-spec 1.0.0-rc1 |
mrunalp
commented
Jul 22, 2016
@wking There is always going to be some lag to support all features in the spec. Question is whether it is worth branching off for 1.0.0.rc1? |
wking
commented
Jul 22, 2016
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 09:53:01AM -0700, Mrunal Patel wrote:
I think it's worth having an ocitools branch/tag that is as complete |
mrunalp
commented
Jul 22, 2016
Yes, we can address #112. I think master should keep tracking the master of the runtime-spec so we don't have to wait for a release. I don't mind us creating a branch/tag for 1.0.0.rc1 if that means that we can keep progressing on master. |
wking
commented
Jul 22, 2016
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 10:08:58AM -0700, Mrunal Patel wrote:
I'd recommend a branch, because I don't think the current ocitools So the 1.0.0-rc1 branch would (as long as it existed) always have the |
mrunalp
commented
Jul 22, 2016
I have pushed a branch v1.0.0.rc1. |
wking
commented
Jul 22, 2016
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 11:08:25AM -0700, Mrunal Patel wrote:
What to do about open PRs targetting master which don't need |
mrunalp
commented
Jul 22, 2016
I don't think we need to push all the open PRs to v1.0.0.rc1. They could go into master. Can you identify any PRs that are needed in that branch? If really needed they could be ported to that branch as cherry picks. |
wking
commented
Jul 22, 2016
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 11:38:43AM -0700, Mrunal Patel wrote:
I'd like the v1.0.0-rc1 branch to validate cgroups (#93) and mount
If you'd rather push the big green button to land them in master, we o---o----a---o master With (a) being the initial PR and (b) being the v1.0.0-rc1 follow-up And to give my preferred merge-to-v1.0.0-rc1-first approach a graph, o---o---a---c master where feature-1 is post-v.1.0.0-rc1-specific and lands in master in |
haiyanmeng
commented
Jul 25, 2016
wking
commented
Jul 25, 2016
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 01:35:08PM -0700, hmeng-19 wrote:
There's a v1.0.0-rc1 branch now 1, and regardless of what we do with |
mrunalp
commented
Jul 26, 2016
LGTM |
wking
commented
Jul 30, 2016
In case it helps, I've setup an alternate history where So just this PR at the moment.
Comparing with our actual If you use but the current For folks who want a full graph of both And the graph of all the commits since this PR's base in both |
The PR vendors the latest version of the runtime-spec package, and updates generate.go.