On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:27:58AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 9:09 PM, Adam Miller
<maxamillion(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Hello all,
> I wanted to bring up the topic of the future of Fedora's Layered
> Image Build System (FLIBS) as it pertains to OpenShift as a backend
> technology that FLIBS is built on top of.
>
> TL;DR - Does anyone care if we move FLIBS to be run on OpenShift
> Container Platform instead of OpenShift Origin in the future?
>
> OpenShift itself comes in two forms. The first is the upstream
> OpenShift Origin which is very rapidly releasing which has no official
> support for older releases (no N-1 support), so it would require a
> fresh roll out every three months. The second is the Red Hat OpenShift
> Container Platform which is the productized version based on OpenShift
> Origin, follows a slower release cadence, and offers longer life
> support per release than Origin. I would like to note for the sake of
> posterity for the mailing list thread that both of these are Open
> Source.
>
> I outline these points in order to ask if there is any preference from
> the Fedora Infrastructure Team on which "edition" of OpenShift that
> FLIBS is built on top of in the future. I ask this because currently
> FLIBS is built on OpenShift Origin which has already proven difficult
> to keep up with latest releases since I'm currently the only one
> working on FLIBS and it's not the only thing I am actively working on
> at any one point in time and I would like to move to OpenShift
> Container Platform in the future.
+1 we use RHEL and other downstream of the community in other places
within the infrastructure too for various reasons, I think it makes
perfect sense to move to a platform that has less churn and active
support so that people, whether it be Infra team or yourself, have
more time to work on enhancements to the service that sits on top
rather than just churning to maintain the underlying infrastructure.
And with my manager hat on, +1 here. Not meaning, "yes, we must do
this." Rather, as someone who monitors how cycles get spent, I mean
it makes sense as a change that frees up those cycles for more
productive, net-new work.
--
Paul W. Frields
http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - -
http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
The open source story continues to grow:
http://opensource.com