4 ms·

> At the same time as adding Docker support to Rocket, we have also opened a pull-request that enables Docker to run appc images (ACIs). I really hope this lan

by efuquen 12y ago

> At the same time as adding Docker support to Rocket, we have also opened a pull-request that enables Docker to run appc images (ACIs). I really hope this lands and something constructive can come out of it. There is a lot more that can be gained by these communities working together and not promoting divisiveness.

AndrewHampton 12y ago
I agree, I think it would be much better for everyone if the two container specs merged. However, after reading "This is a simple functional PR..." in the blog post, I was surprised to see the PR adds over 38k lines of code. Seems like that will take a while to review.
- shawnps 12y ago
  Most of those lines added are appc getting vendorized
- shawnps 12y ago
  Most of those lines added are appc getting vendorized
rohansingh 12y ago
Same here. It is a pretty huge PR though, without having gone through the usual design proposal process (i.e., https://github.com/docker/docker/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#design-and-cleanup-proposals https://github.com/docker/docker/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md...).
- philips 12y ago
  We wrote a proposal along with the PR: https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/10777 https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/10777 Adding a PR with working code was simply to show that adding this feature is something that is possible. It is OK if nothing from this implementation gets merged.
  - rohansingh 12y ago
    Yup, saw that. I do hope you guys are able to figure it out and get things merged.
userp 12y ago
> There is a lot more that can be gained by these communities working together and not promoting divisiveness. Gained by who though? These are for-profit enterprises and there are real-money gains involved in controlling the spec. For better or worse, CoreOS controls the App Container spec and make no mistake that the primary reason they want it in Docker is because it benefits them. This of course does not exclude the possibility that users benefit. Still, I'm of the opinion that all of this fighting behind the scenes (which, if you've been paying attention, this is) is kind of bad for everyone and a waste of resources.
- tbatchelli 12y ago
  Competition is benefitting users and producing some relative waste of resources on each company. We are benefitting because at the end of the day the container world will be more open. But I think that this VC-backed model might not be beneficial for OS as a business in the mid-long term. The race to $0 is greatly accelerated.
  - eropple 12y ago
    Do you think that the VC-backed model is good for open-source as an ecosystem, even if not a business? Because, watching the growth of Docker and CoreOS, I'm starting to wonder if it isn't just a tire fire for us at every level.
    - tbatchelli 12y ago
      Might send Open Source back to how it was pre-Red Hat. Whether that's good or bad, I don't know.

by efuquen 12y ago

AndrewHampton 12y ago

I agree, I think it would be much better for everyone if the two container specs merged. However, after reading "This is a simple functional PR..." in the blog post, I was surprised to see the PR adds over 38k lines of code. Seems like that will take a while to review.

shawnps 12y ago
Most of those lines added are appc getting vendorized
shawnps 12y ago
Most of those lines added are appc getting vendorized

rohansingh 12y ago

Same here. It is a pretty huge PR though, without having gone through the usual design proposal process (i.e., https://github.com/docker/docker/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#design-and-cleanup-proposals https://github.com/docker/docker/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md...).

philips 12y ago
We wrote a proposal along with the PR: https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/10777 https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/10777 Adding a PR with working code was simply to show that adding this feature is something that is possible. It is OK if nothing from this implementation gets merged.
- rohansingh 12y ago
  Yup, saw that. I do hope you guys are able to figure it out and get things merged.

userp 12y ago

> There is a lot more that can be gained by these communities working together and not promoting divisiveness. Gained by who though? These are for-profit enterprises and there are real-money gains involved in controlling the spec. For better or worse, CoreOS controls the App Container spec and make no mistake that the primary reason they want it in Docker is because it benefits them. This of course does not exclude the possibility that users benefit. Still, I'm of the opinion that all of this fighting behind the scenes (which, if you've been paying attention, this is) is kind of bad for everyone and a waste of resources.

tbatchelli 12y ago
Competition is benefitting users and producing some relative waste of resources on each company. We are benefitting because at the end of the day the container world will be more open. But I think that this VC-backed model might not be beneficial for OS as a business in the mid-long term. The race to $0 is greatly accelerated.
- eropple 12y ago
  Do you think that the VC-backed model is good for open-source as an ecosystem, even if not a business? Because, watching the growth of Docker and CoreOS, I'm starting to wonder if it isn't just a tire fire for us at every level.
  - tbatchelli 12y ago
    Might send Open Source back to how it was pre-Red Hat. Whether that's good or bad, I don't know.