So we have something to cite to avoid rehashing established decisions.
Provide some motivation and links to the backing discussion so folks
can re-open these if they have new information that wasn't covered in
the original decision.
Like the glossary (18734986, glossary: Provide a quick overview of
important terms, 2015-08-11, #107), I've used subsection titles for
each entry to get link anchors.
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
And link them to the more detailed specification.
Subsection titles for the entries will be obnoxiously spacious, but
the other alternatives seem worse:
a. An HTML definition list (<dl>) would have nice default styling, but
it's annoying to write raw HTML. And we would have needed
something like:
<dt name="bundle">Bundle</dt>
<dd>
A [directory structure](bundle.md) that is...
</dd>
to get Markdown-style links in the defintion itself.
b. A Markdown list (* ...) would have reasonable default styling, but
there's no Markdown syntax for adding anchors to the entries. And
a glossary is much less useful if you can't link to a specific
entry.
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
In #opencontainers after today's meeting, here's the source for the
change from Google Hangouts to BlueJeans:
12:01 < wking> Is the BlueJeans approach going to be our standard
procedure? If so, I can file a PR updating our weekly-meeting docs
(which still talk about YouTube and Google Hangouts)
12:03 < mrunalp> wking: Yeah, I think so.
12:04 < wking> ok. And it's just going to "push the BlueJeans link to
IRC and the list before the meeting"? Or does BlueJeans have stable
channel URLs or similar?
12:05 < mrunalp> wking: The URL that we used today is stable.
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 09:38:50AM -0700, Mrunal Patel wrote [1]:
> There is a limit of 10 participants per hangout. So, I will
> broadcast it at the time when it starts and people who aren't
> invited could view the stream and discuss on IRC.
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 09:53:59AM -0700, Mrunal Patel wrote [2]:
> I think the youtube channel should work as the broadcast link
> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1wmLdEYmwWcsFg7bt1s5nw
The IRC channel location is from opencontainers/web@f693390f (updated
content, 2015-06-21).
[1]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/d/msg/dev/Cy5uFI_ySpg/E1FnYUmfDwAJ
From: Mrunal Patel
Subject: Re: Discussions and Notes
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:38:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CANEZBD7K=8+i7RaTAkg_0XLUSQrZLykGR0bxce-JtErO8KAQ1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: dev <dev@opencontainers.org>, ...
[2]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/d/msg/dev/Cy5uFI_ySpg/X4RQEx2gDwAJ
From: Mrunal Patel
Subject: Re: Discussions and Notes
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:53:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CANEZBD7snSro5GXYc6QRuk3+KnR0WAeFThfQXvOcnx3t9jNXag@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: dev <dev@opencontainers.org>, ...
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 11:57:59AM -0700, Mrunal Patel wrote [1]:
> We could also have guests on the hangout if they have some important
> topic to present. We can decide that on the topics being discussed
> in the mailing list.
On Sat, Aug 08, 2015 at 08:23:21AM -0400, Vincent Batts wrote [2]:
> We said the topics would be proposed on this list. Discussion notes have
> been shared as a Google doc so far. I'm not opposed to markdown notes, but
> initially that just seems like an repo to me.
More generally, the topic of feedback loops came up in the 2015-08-05
meeting [3,4] (after 26:02 in the video), and the consensus was to
start discussion anything that seemed worth discussion on the mailing
list ("conversations and discussions should be on
dev@opencontainers.org mailing-list first, conversations and
discussions should be on dev@opencontainers.org" [3]). That doesn't
speak to agenda-formation specifically, but it makes an official
policy of discussing most things on the mailing list, and the two
posts I quote above extend that general approach to agenda formation.
While touching this paragraph, I also re-wrapped it to match
README.md#markdown-style.
[1]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/d/msg/dev/JsXgi4kxkBg/Gw7GvPodDgAJ
From: Mrunal Patel
Subject: Re: Hangout link for today
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 11:57:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CANEZBD6Zs5Ht8dgkvSHRHQGaVLms_kSGqCV00AJD6eFLm9hR4w@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: dev <dev@opencontainers.org>, …
[2]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/d/msg/dev/41jZ9Qe7R5c/ZInajC_0DgAJ
From: Vincent Batts
Subject: Re: Open Container Weekly Meeting - Aug 5, 2015
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 08:23:21 -0400
Message-ID: <CAN6Zp5yFX8yLG3b-82SAq7AmCxVpoy1tyt0K1ijFqSsCjKPRpg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: dev <dev@opencontainers.org>, …
[3]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1a5UW7MRLVaUDEjuQmRudYMZcPV0bBtPD2QEOLT_3zi0/edit?usp=sharing
[4]: https://plus.google.com/events/cqfpicicbnra9mv6kvpj0mb24u4
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
These actions need consistent tooling, and they're the sweet spot for
tools like runc. Once you map the container spec to the filesystem,
the other actions (copy, snapshot, upload, download) can all be
handled by existing tools (e.g. POSIX's 'cp', 'btrfs subvolume
snapshot', netcat, etc.). If existing tooling for those actions is
not sufficiently portable, new portable tools can be written, but that
should be separate from the container-specific stuff here.
I'm not sure about the intended meaning of the 'tagged' action. Was
that intended for discoverability ("I want a container named 'Nginx'")
or auth ("Is my local /srv/nginx the same container 'Nginx' that Bob
audited?"). I think both are independent of the container runtime
though.
We had an in-person spec discussion, lets separate the spec into some
high-level sections to clarify future discussion.
Crosby agreed to let me merge to master :)
W. Trevor King
Mrunal Patel
Vincent Batts
Mike Brown
Zefan Li
Michael Crosby
Vincent Batts
Brandon Philips
Lai Jiangshan
Brandon Philips
Patrick Chanezon