On 04/20/2015 01:06 PM, Lokesh Mandvekar wrote: > > I've pretty much decided that 'docker' in virt SIG would only track upstream > sources (no RH patches in it). Don't want this to sound like "I don't care > what anyone says", but docker upstream and many CentOS users want a build > which will only track upstream docker sources. Having 'docker' in virt SIG to > be this build sounds like the way to go. Agree. It would be nice to hear what the Atomic SIG folks think about this though as they're direct consumers. > For anyone interested in RH patches, there's 'docker-master' in virt SIG > (docker master branch + RH patches) and 'docker' in CentOS-Extras of course. > Also, I could add anything else to make anyone else happy. > >> What do the RH patches actually do? > > > Some docker behavior does get modified, like adding and blocking registries, > checking for confirmation before pushing to public registries. AFAIK, patches > were added only with permission from upstream docker and we're working > towards upstreaming those patches too. > >> >> I think either one could make sense depending on how much value the >> patches provide / how much they cost to port to the latest release. > These patches are desirable to enterprise users, but I've been hearing a lot > directly/indirectly from CentOS users that they only want vanilla docker > behavior. Porting/rebasing is taken care of by RH folks on a daily basis. Is this mainly just do to the private auth bug reported by quay.io users or is it more widespread than that? -- Jim Perrin The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77