Cleanup the spec a bit to remove WG/git text that's not really part of the spec #626

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Nov 16, 2016

Projects

None yet

6 participants

@duglin
Contributor
duglin commented Nov 14, 2016

First pass - and a little bit of extra clean-up. Per the f2f at kubecon.

Signed-off-by: Doug Davis dug@us.ibm.com

RELEASES.md
@@ -7,6 +7,14 @@ Releases are proposed and adopted or rejected using the usual [project governanc
An anti-pattern that we want to avoid is heavy development or discussions "late cycle" around major releases.
We want to build a community that is involved and communicates consistently through all releases instead of relying on "silent periods" as a judge of stability.
+## Release Process
@wking
wking Nov 14, 2016 Contributor

The old project.md was runtime-spec-specific notes. This RELEASES.md is generic OCI policy. I'd rather keep those in separate files.

@duglin
duglin Nov 14, 2016 Contributor

From an end-user perspective just trying to understand things I don't see much of a diff.

@wking
wking Nov 14, 2016 Contributor

Non-maintainers have to understand neither, all maintainers have to understand the current RELEASES.md, and only @vbatts (or whoever is cutting the release) needs to understand the notes you're moving here.

@dqminh
dqminh Nov 15, 2016 Contributor

i also think runtime-spec specific process doesnt need to be in the same file as the generic oci release.md. Maybe these can just be in README ? Separating makes it easier to apply upstream Release.md changes too if necessary.

@duglin
duglin Nov 15, 2016 Contributor

ok - re-reading the RELEASES.md file.... I have no idea why that file is even here :-)
If its not runtime-spec specific then it shouldn't be in this repo at all. I'm inclined to say we remove it entirely and put it at a higher level in the OCI git repo structure, but let's do that in a separate PR. For now, there should just be one runtime-spec release process/guidance doc.

@wking
wking Nov 15, 2016 Contributor

If its not runtime-spec specific then it shouldn't be in this repo at all. I'm inclined to say we remove it entirely and put it at a higher level in the OCI git repo structure, but let's do that in a separate PR.

The release-doc issue seems orthogonal to the README decoupling, so I'd rather not touch them in this PR.

And the local copy is because each project can tweak the generic docs, although they're encouraged not to.

@wking
wking Nov 16, 2016 Contributor

With 082ebc160c3c76 you've restored project.md, but you still need to drop the addition here.

@duglin
duglin Nov 16, 2016 Contributor

darn - thought I did that - fixed - thanks

@@ -595,7 +595,7 @@ The values MUST be absolute paths in the [container namespace][container-namespa
"mountLabel": "system_u:object_r:svirt_sandbox_file_t:s0:c715,c811"
```
-[container-namespace]: glossary.md#container_namespace
+[container-namespace2]: glossary.md#container_namespace
@wking
wking Nov 14, 2016 Contributor

Why this change?

@duglin
duglin Nov 14, 2016 Contributor

The pdf generation tool was generating a warning message so this is one way to avoid that.

@wking
wking Nov 14, 2016 Contributor

Probably worth putting the warning message in your commit message so that that's clear in the future.

@duglin
duglin Nov 14, 2016 Contributor

done

@wking
Contributor
wking commented Nov 14, 2016

There's some overlap between this and my work-in-progress AsciiDoc translation (#615), but I'm fine rerolling my AsciiDoc if this lands first.

@crosbymichael
Member
crosbymichael commented Nov 14, 2016 edited

LGTM

Approved with PullApprove

@hqhq
Contributor
hqhq commented Nov 15, 2016

Needs rebase.

@duglin
Contributor
duglin commented Nov 15, 2016

rebased - I think I got the changes right.

README.md
## Code of Conduct
Participation in the OCI community is governed by the [OCI Code of Conduct](https://github.com/opencontainers/tob/blob/d2f9d68c1332870e40693fe077d311e0742bc73d/code-of-conduct.md).
+=======
+>>>>>>> 2d08a81... Cleanup the spec a bit to remove WG/git text that's not really part of the spec
@wking
wking Nov 15, 2016 Contributor

Busted rebase?

@duglin
Contributor
duglin commented Nov 15, 2016

@wking fixed rebase issue - thanks

spec.md
+An implementation is not compliant for a given CPU architecture if it fails to satisfy one or more of the MUST, REQUIRED, or SHALL requirements for the protocols it implements.
+An implementation is compliant for a given CPU architecture if it satisfies all the MUST, REQUIRED, and SHALL requirements for the protocols it implements.
+
+[rfc2119]: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119
@wking
wking Nov 15, 2016 Contributor

You can drop this from the README now that you've shifted the consumer over here.

@wking
wking Nov 15, 2016 Contributor

And you still need to shift over the c99-unspecified definition.

@duglin
Contributor
duglin commented Nov 16, 2016

fixed extra/missing refs and backed-out the 'releases' stuff - will save for another PR.
@crosbymichael you may want to just recheck to make sure your LGTM is still true.

@duglin duglin referenced this pull request in opencontainers/image-spec Nov 16, 2016
Merged

Clean-up spec to remove non-spec-ish items #458

README.md
-* Linux containers: [runtime.md](runtime.md), [config.md](config.md), [config-linux.md](config-linux.md), and [runtime-linux.md](runtime-linux.md).
-* Solaris containers: [runtime.md](runtime.md), [config.md](config.md), and [config-solaris.md](config-solaris.md).
-* Windows containers: [runtime.md](runtime.md), [config.md](config.md), and [config-windows.md](config-windows.md).
+[charter]: https://www.opencontainers.org/about/governance
@wking
wking Nov 16, 2016 Contributor

This should move back into RELEASES.md.

@duglin
duglin Nov 16, 2016 Contributor

done

@duglin duglin Cleanup the spec a bit to remove WG/git text that's not really part o…
…f the spec

renamed an href to "container-namespace2" to avoid a dup-warning msg from
the PDF generator

Signed-off-by: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
e7be40f
@dqminh
Contributor
dqminh commented Nov 16, 2016 edited

LGTM

Approved with PullApprove

@mrunalp
Contributor
mrunalp commented Nov 16, 2016 edited

LGTM

Approved with PullApprove

@wking
Contributor
wking commented Nov 16, 2016
@mrunalp mrunalp merged commit 7839cbb into opencontainers:master Nov 16, 2016

2 checks passed

code-review/pullapprove Approved by dqminh, mrunalp
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
@wking wking added a commit to wking/opencontainer-runtime-spec that referenced this pull request Jan 12, 2017
@wking wking runtime: Clarify UTS and mount cleanup on 'delete'
Now that d43fc42 (config-linux: Lift no-tweaking namespace
restriction, 2017-01-11, #649) allows us to get into this sort of
situation.  This sort of ownership may also apply to other resources
(cgroups?), but we can handle them in follow-up commits.

Also drop "Configuration" from the root header.  Everything in that
file is a configuration.

container-namespace3 (instead of container-namespace) supports the
single-page, Pandoc-generated file (see e7be40f, Cleanup the spec a
bit to remove WG/git text that's not really part of the spec,
2016-11-14, #626).

Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
2e71558
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment