On 02/15/2016 05:31 AM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
On 02/14/2016 09:29 PM, Jon Stanley wrote:
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Jeremy Eder wrote:
Could we prompt the user to optionally prune unused images before migrating?
(maybe those that haven't been used in the last 30 days...)
Can't very we
On 02/14/2016 09:29 PM, Jon Stanley wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Jeremy Eder wrote:
>> Could we prompt the user to optionally prune unused images before migrating?
>> (maybe those that haven't been used in the last 30 days...)
> Can't very well prompt the user during an unattended u
> Could we prompt the user to optionally prune unused images before
migrating?
The can recommend on fedora magazine that users should "docker rmi" images
that they don't use before update.
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016, 4:29 AM Jon Stanley wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Jeremy Eder wrote:
>
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Jeremy Eder wrote:
> Could we prompt the user to optionally prune unused images before migrating?
> (maybe those that haven't been used in the last 30 days...)
Can't very well prompt the user during an unattended upgrade :)
Another question - how is such a thing
| A: "Daniel J Walsh" , "Jason Brooks" <
> jbro...@redhat.com>
> | Cc: atomic-devel@projectatomic.io
> | Inviato: Sabato, 13 febbraio 2016 15:37:22
> | Oggetto: Re: [atomic-devel] Concerns about pushing Docker 1.10 into
> Fedora23
> |
> | > > Well w
- Messaggio originale -
| Da: "Muayyad AlSadi"
| A: "Daniel J Walsh" , "Jason Brooks"
| Cc: atomic-devel@projectatomic.io
| Inviato: Sabato, 13 febbraio 2016 15:37:22
| Oggetto: Re: [atomic-devel] Concerns about pushing Docker 1.10 into Fedora23
|
| >
> > Well we probably need you guys playing with this, if there is a problem
> so we can figure out how to fix it.
>
>
dnf install fedora-repos-rawhide
dnf --enable-repo=rawhide update docker
now "rpm -q docker" gives me
docker-1.10.1-1.git1b79038.fc24.x86_64
first note: migrate took too much tim
ul or skydns
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Jason Brooks <
>> jbro...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message -----
>>> > From: "Josh Berkus" < jber...@redhat.com>
>>>
gt;
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> > From: "Josh Berkus" > <mailto:jber...@redhat.com>>
>> > To: atomic-devel@projectatomic.io
>> <mailto:atomic-devel@projectatomic.io&
Feb 9, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Jason Brooks wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> > From: "Josh Berkus"
>> > To: atomic-devel@projectatomic.io
>> > Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 12:14:01 AM
>> > Subject: [atomic-devel] Concerns abou
ectatomic.io
> <mailto:atomic-devel@projectatomic.io>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 12:14:01 AM
> > Subject: [atomic-devel] Concerns about pushing Docker 1.10 into
> Fedora23
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > We were discussing t
ot;
> > To: atomic-devel@projectatomic.io
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 12:14:01 AM
> > Subject: [atomic-devel] Concerns about pushing Docker 1.10 into Fedora23
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > We were discussing the changes in Docker 1.10 at DevConf and became very
> &g
- Original Message -
> From: "Josh Berkus"
> To: atomic-devel@projectatomic.io
> Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 12:14:01 AM
> Subject: [atomic-devel] Concerns about pushing Docker 1.10 into Fedora23
>
> Folks,
>
> We were discussing the changes in
ine-v1.10.0-content-addressability-migration
>
> - Messaggio originale -
> | Da: "Joe Brockmeier"
> | A: atomic-devel@projectatomic.io
> | Inviato: Martedì, 9 febbraio 2016 14:24:32
> | Oggetto: Re: [atomic-devel] Concerns about pushing Docker 1.10 into Fedora23
> |
rojectatomic.io
| Inviato: Martedì, 9 febbraio 2016 14:24:32
| Oggetto: Re: [atomic-devel] Concerns about pushing Docker 1.10 into Fedora23
|
| On 02/09/2016 02:12 PM, Antonio Murdaca wrote:
| > we've packaged docker-1.10 spec to run the migrator before the update
| > so, hopefully users won
On 02/09/2016 02:12 PM, Antonio Murdaca wrote:
> we've packaged docker-1.10 spec to run the migrator before the update
> so, hopefully users won't have to wait for so long. I know it's somehow risky
> tough.
> Right now docker-1.10 with the migrator is in F24 for ppl to test also.
> The build is h
ì, 9 febbraio 2016 13:45:58
| Oggetto: Re: [atomic-devel] Concerns about pushing Docker 1.10 into Fedora23
|
| Hey Antonio, I remember discussing the migrator with you a while ago.
| Where did that end up? Can I see it/test it out?
|
| On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:23 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
|
Hey Antonio, I remember discussing the migrator with you a while ago.
Where did that end up? Can I see it/test it out?
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:23 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> On 02/09/2016 10:57 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > One thing we *could* do is put it in updates testing in F23 but _never
On 02/09/2016 10:57 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> One thing we *could* do is put it in updates testing in F23 but _never_
> put it into stable there. That would allow people who want it to opt in
> to that branch on F23 if they need it.
I'm definitely good with it being in updates testing for F23 so
On 2016-02-09 10:57, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 10:17:20AM +0100, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> Is it worth considering holding 1.10 back until Fedora24?
We should do so by policy, if I understand correctly. This is not a
compatible change and users can't easily roll back. We should
On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 10:17:20AM +0100, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> > Is it worth considering holding 1.10 back until Fedora24?
> We should do so by policy, if I understand correctly. This is not a
> compatible change and users can't easily roll back. We should freeze F23
> on 1.10, and the two-week
On 02/09/2016 09:14 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> Is it worth considering holding 1.10 back until Fedora24?
We should do so by policy, if I understand correctly. This is not a
compatible change and users can't easily roll back. We should freeze F23
on 1.10, and the two-week atomic releases should st
On 2016-02-09 09:46, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 02/09/2016 09:46 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
With "the system being unresponsive" you mean "Docker is unresponsive"
and perhaps even "system under high load", right?
Correct.
I would vote in favour of pushing Docker 1.10 to Fedora 23, with some
On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 03:14:01AM -0500, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Is it worth considering holding 1.10 back until Fedora24?
Definitely worth considering -- thanks for bringing it up. Is there
specific new functionality in this release that is useful/important for
Atomic?
--
Matthew Miller
Fedora P
- Messaggio originale -
| Da: "Josh Berkus"
| A: "Jeroen van Meeuwen"
| Cc: atomic-devel@projectatomic.io
| Inviato: Martedì, 9 febbraio 2016 9:46:40
| Oggetto: Re: [atomic-devel] Concerns about pushing Docker 1.10 into Fedora23
|
| On 02/09/2016 09:46 AM, Jero
On 2016-02-09 09:14, Josh Berkus wrote:
Folks,
We were discussing the changes in Docker 1.10 at DevConf and became
very concerned about the consequences of pushing it into Fedora23. I
don't think that users will be prepared for the upgrade process for
existing images. Basically, I can see two
On 02/09/2016 09:46 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
On 2016-02-09 09:14, Josh Berkus wrote:
Folks,
We were discussing the changes in Docker 1.10 at DevConf and became
very concerned about the consequences of pushing it into Fedora23. I
don't think that users will be prepared for the upgrade proc
Folks,
We were discussing the changes in Docker 1.10 at DevConf and became very
concerned about the consequences of pushing it into Fedora23. I don't think
that users will be prepared for the upgrade process for existing images.
Basically, I can see two things happening to create some really
28 matches
Mail list logo
