Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

remove double dash #9864

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jun 18, 2015
Merged

Conversation

marekbiskup
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@k8s-bot
Copy link

k8s-bot commented Jun 16, 2015

GCE e2e build/test passed for commit 1021f6c34e2c3791b281deaa0490595ffb222d3d.

@@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ With the IP-per-pod model, all user containers within a pod behave as if they ar

In addition to avoiding the aforementioned problems with dynamic port allocation, this approach reduces friction for applications moving from the world of uncontainerized apps on physical or virtual hosts to containers within pods. People running application stacks together on the same host have already figured out how to make ports not conflict (e.g., by configuring them through environment variables) and have arranged for clients to find them.

The approach does reduce isolation between containers within a pod -- ports could conflict, and there couldn't be private ports across containers within a pod, but applications requiring their own port spaces could just run as separate pods and processes requiring private communication could run within the same container. Besides, the premise of pods is that containers within a pod share some resources (volumes, cpu, ram, etc.) and therefore expect and tolerate reduced isolation. Additionally, the user can control what containers belong to the same pod whereas, in general, they don't control what pods land together on a host.
The approach does reduce isolation between containers within a pod - ports could conflict, and there couldn't be private ports across containers within a pod, but applications requiring their own port spaces could just run as separate pods and processes requiring private communication could run within the same container. Besides, the premise of pods is that containers within a pod share some resources (volumes, cpu, ram, etc.) and therefore expect and tolerate reduced isolation. Additionally, the user can control what containers belong to the same pod whereas, in general, they don't control what pods land together on a host.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The correct punctuation here is an em dash. Suggest changing -- to —, which will render nicely — like that.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good point. I wasn't aware of that

@erictune erictune self-assigned this Jun 16, 2015
@marekbiskup
Copy link
Contributor Author

@erictune , please check if this is better.
I made this change only in these three files.

@k8s-bot
Copy link

k8s-bot commented Jun 17, 2015

GCE e2e build/test passed for commit 7b403ed.

@erictune
Copy link
Member

lgtm

@erictune erictune added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jun 18, 2015
satnam6502 added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 18, 2015
@satnam6502 satnam6502 merged commit 2d1c3c3 into kubernetes:master Jun 18, 2015
xingzhou pushed a commit to xingzhou/kubernetes that referenced this pull request Dec 15, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants