On 04/13/2016 04:53 PM, Colin Walters wrote: >> - is the atomic project (mainly the centos part) is independent of >> redhat atomic or it's just a rebuild of redhat atomic (similar to >> redhat->centos). > > There are two aspects to CentOS, and indeed this is very confusing. > See: > > https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup > > The "CentOS Core" is purely a rebuild from source of upstream binaries.
i know this:-) > Whereas the other SIGs take arbitrary different code on top, newer > versions of things, etc. the question here is "centos atomic" a rebuild of "redhat atomic" or it's not that simple? >> - what about the openshift components? will them added to atomic project >> or not? > > For upstream OpenShift Origin, there is indeed a containerized version > available, and I certainly believe myself that supporting OpenShift should > be a priority for Project Atomic, if not the #1 priority. the most important component would be the openshift router, since currently there is no such component in atomic setup and without it's no usable project can be deployed. >> - what about flannel? it'd be dockerized or replaced by openvswitch >> which is used by openshift? > > I'm not a networking person, but ideally one of them would respond here... this would be interesting to see which network overlay system to use. >> - who is in charge? i see on the list Josh, Colin, Daniel, Joe and many >> others are working on many different things but can't find anywhere any >> plan or design docs or something. > > This partially devolves to the upstream of the individual projects, but > this list should be used for inter-project coordination. individual project are a separate think and easier thing. but for example which component's which version put into atomic host is a harder part and some kind of overview would be useful. also it's be useful to see a clear view of project atomic's roadmap, plan, priorities and who is working on what etc. -- Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!"
