On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:53 PM, Róman Joost rjoost@redhat.com wrote:
Dear Jeff,
On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 08:25:47AM -0500, Jeffrey Burke wrote:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Nick Coghlan ncoghlan@redhat.com wrote:
----- Original Message -----
Excerpts from Amit Saha's message of 2014-08-20 14:04 +10:00:
[...]
Yep, lets start with some permissive "you can do whatever you want" defaults (it's a test harness after all), and if we get requests to be able to run tests in a locked down container instead... well, part of the reason for giving the default container lots of power is so people can start their *own* locked down containers if they want them. If people want the harness container to be more configurable, they're gonna have to be *real* persuasive in order to successfully argue that starting a second container doesn't make more sense :)
Hi All, I wanted to see if I could revive this thread. It has been several years now. We still have two harnesses in Beaker. Roman do you have a roadmap of the Beaker Harness plan.
I don't specifically know the contents of that conversation. Perhaps Dan can give me a hint if I'm on a wrong track here.
Our current idea is to make restraint the default harness for RHEL8+ and therefore slowly phase out beah (as the default). That includes getting restraint to achieve feature parity with beah. I don't have an exact time frame for this yet and how we would pull this off, since I expect there are possibly higher priority items coming up.
That is a good plan. Do you have a list of features in BEAH that are not in Restraint to achieve parity?
Does that answer your question or at least goes in the right direction?
Partially, do you know who on your team will be SME for Restraint?
Thank you, Jeff
Kind Regards,
Róman Joost Senior Software Engineer, Products & Technologies Operations (Brisbane) Red Hat
Beaker-devel mailing list -- beaker-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to beaker-devel-leave@lists.fedorahosted.org