On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 8:42 PM, Troy Dawson <tdawson@redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:
> On 30/09/16 12:22, Mohammed Ahmed wrote:
>> Even if there aren't any updates to 1.2 containers on toe repos, its
>> still possible the containers might get rebuilt from other triggers,
>> such as base image rebuilds and so on.
>>
>
> is there a precidence here ? have there been updates to a prev release ?
> I guess the way the Dockerfile.CentOS went into 1.2 would potentially
> constitute a change in pre-code, since Master/ at the time was already
> 1.3Alpha, but is there another example for say a bugfix or a security
> update ?
>
> Another way to look at this might be - is there a LTS like model in
> openshift origin ?
>

Nope

This brings up a very good point I hadn't even thought about.
We're trying to treat a rotating product (designed to only use the
latest version) in an enterprise / LTS way.

At the moment, I don't have anything else to say, as I said, I hadn't
even thought about it until now.

Troy
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel


So how do we want to proceed with this. Build only the latest containers by updating branch in container-index every time there is a release, or 
do we want to update the dockerfiles to use more specific rpms by version (will require maintenance of the rpms). In the case of latter we might 
need LTS.

--
Mohammed Zeeshan Ahmed
Associate Software Engineer, Redhat Developers Team (Devtools)

RED HAT | DIFFERENT FOR THE SAKE OF BETTER TECHNOLOGY

Find out why every airline, telecom, commercial bank, healthcare, and financial data services company in the Fortune 500 relies on Red Hat.

Trusted | Red Hat