17:01:42 #startmeeting 2016-04-06 runtime discussion 17:01:42 Meeting started Wed Apr 6 17:01:42 2016 UTC. The chair is vbatts. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:01:42 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 17:01:42 The meeting name has been set to '2016_04_06_runtime_discussion' 17:03:30 #topic close issues / PRs 17:03:39 https://github.com/opencontainers/runtime-spec/pull/293 17:03:50 #link https://github.com/opencontainers/runtime-spec/pull/293 17:03:56 mrunalp: we should move that to image-spec^ 17:04:16 well, be merged'ish 17:04:18 https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/pull/6 17:04:33 duglin: it doesn't make sense since image-spec is starting from Docker v2.2 manifest, so it should just be closed 17:04:48 that ^ was philips 17:04:57 https://github.com/opencontainers/runtime-spec/issues/302 17:05:35 https://github.com/opencontainers/runtime-spec/issues/11 17:06:45 https://github.com/opencontainers/runtime-spec/issues/344 17:07:29 vbatts: new topic for 0.5? 17:07:36 #topic v0.5.0 17:07:41 #link https://github.com/opencontainers/runtime-spec/milestones/v0.5.0 17:07:47 #chairs wking 17:07:50 #chair wking 17:07:50 Current chairs: vbatts wking 17:08:01 mrunalp: we probably won't resolve the sandbox issue without a PR 17:08:08 #link https://github.com/opencontainers/runtime-spec/issues/299 17:08:35 mrunalp: should we bump #299 to 0.6.0, or just delay 0.5.0 17:08:43 https://github.com/opencontainers/runtime-spec/issues/299 17:08:57 philips: I bumped it to 0.6.0 17:09:27 mrunalp: how are we synchronizing image-spec and runtime-spec? Or are they independent? 17:09:43 vbatts: the milestones are different, but we want 1.0 around the same time 17:10:09 vbatts: there is going to be some overlap, because there is shared boilerplate (code of conduct, style checks, etc.) 17:10:21 Overall there is this note on the runtime-spec & image-spec: https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec#cooperation-with-oci-runtime-project 17:10:21 vbatts: there will be JSON Schema overlap as well 17:10:44 you can link from image-spec to the runtime-spec JSON Schema definitions^ 17:10:53 Whoa, really excited about this image-spec 17:11:13 philips: appc has a template repository, but copying is probably ok for now 17:11:20 This is the template-project we use: https://github.com/coreos/template-project 17:11:42 RobDolinMS: does it make sense to have two weekly calls? Or keep it in one? 17:11:56 mrunalp: the runtime stuff is winding down, so probably keep one weekly call 17:12:16 philips: image spec has a lot of prior art, so we may only need a biweekly call 17:12:38 RobDolinMS: so Wednesday remains a generic dev call, and we can fork if needed 17:13:02 RobDolinMS: for 0.5.0, how urgent is cutting the release in the next day or two? 17:13:09 vbatts: that's pretty subjective 17:13:28 RobDolinMS: we may have a conformance clause coming, which would make it easier for conformance testing 17:13:50 RobDolinMS: if we hold 0.5.0, I can have Stephen submit it today (it's just a paragraph or so) 17:13:59 mrunalp: we can probably wait for that 17:14:56 vbatts: anything besides #344 for 0.5.0? What has changed since 0.4.0? 17:15:27 mrunalp: hook timeouts (#346) 17:15:51 mrunalp: read-only and masked paths (#364) 17:16:25 #action vbatts to update the example JSON (#344) 17:16:39 mrunalp: we may need another week or two for the create/start split 17:17:06 mrunalp: for timing 0.6.0^ 17:17:23 julz_: duglin is traveling for a while, so it probably makes sense to defer create/start 17:17:48 mrunalp: create/start is the only item on 0.6.0 17:18:04 vishh: then just keep it open until create/start is ready 17:18:29 RobDolinMS_: after create/start lands, cut 0.6.0 and make that the release cantidate 17:18:39 RobDolinMS_: after that, release on demand instead of timing releases 17:18:41 mrunalp: works for me 17:18:48 sgtm too 17:18:50 vishh: sounds good to me 17:18:53 and to me 17:19:11 RobDolinMS_: hopefully we stabilize, and then cut 1.0 in early June 17:19:13 mrunalp: yup 17:19:30 #topic create/start split 17:19:53 julz_: this is ready for early comments, but it's not in its final form 17:20:14 #link https://github.com/duglin/runtime-spec/tree/SplitCreate 17:20:39 julz_: I don't think the implementation is controversial, but either duglin or I may put something together so folks can kick the tires 17:20:56 mrunalp: so we'll get something more solid and discuss next week 17:21:08 #endmeeting