Skip to content

spec: split serialization into image and layer#206

Merged
jonboulle merged 1 commit intoopencontainers:masterfrom
stevvooe:split-serialization
Aug 30, 2016
Merged

spec: split serialization into image and layer#206
jonboulle merged 1 commit intoopencontainers:masterfrom
stevvooe:split-serialization

Conversation

@stevvooe
Copy link
Contributor

@stevvooe stevvooe commented Aug 24, 2016

Signed-off-by: Stephen J Day stephen.day@docker.com

Open after merging this:

Closes #128, Depends on #212

Signed-off-by: Stephen J Day <stephen.day@docker.com>
@stevvooe stevvooe added this to the v0.5.0 milestone Aug 24, 2016
This specification outlines the format of these filesystem changes and corresponding parameters and describes how to create and use them for use with a container runtime and execution tool.
This specification outlines the JSON format describing images for use with a container runtime and execution tool and its relationship to filesystem change sets, described in [Layers](layer.md).

## Terminology
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

While we're splitting things up, do we want to move the terminology into a glossary.md?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is terminology that is specific to the context of this format. Pulling it up would imply a larger context, which is both confusing and incorrect.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 07:44:39AM -0700, Stephen Day wrote:

Terminology

This is terminology that is specific to the context of this format.

“Layer” is more general than this format, since it's now covered in a
separate file (layer.md). “Tag” and “Repository” seem like they're
waiting for some future naming spec, and don't seem to be specific to
this file's serialization spec. If we want to keep a terminology
section for the serialization spec, we should at least restrict it to
serialization-specific terms.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@wking Layer has very specific to this version of the specification and config. For the most part, the meaning of a layer at the higher-level is largely agnostic. At this level, their meaning is narrow and part of their relationship with the image configuration.

Read through it again.

Pulling this detail up doesn't help for contextual understanding or clarity.

Either way, this is massively outside the scope of this PR. You may submit another PR that removes, but I won't LGTM, as it creates confusion, ambiguity and indirection that makes meaning impossible to interpret.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 03:22:13PM -0700, Stephen Day wrote:

Either way, this is massively outside the scope of this PR.

I have no problem punting to a follow-up PR. No need to slow this one
down with the terminology move being contentious.

@philips
Copy link
Contributor

philips commented Aug 29, 2016

Can we make this not depend on #212? Getting this split merged quickly without any major changes is important to ensure this PR doesn't block other stuff.

@stevvooe
Copy link
Contributor Author

@philips They could probably be one PR. If you want me to do a simple split, then PR the fixups listed above, that would be okay, but I really don't want this to be "half-done".

@philips
Copy link
Contributor

philips commented Aug 29, 2016

@stevvooe Your call. It just depends on how much rebasing you want to do. I think moving the files around with zero changes is something we should do first and quickly which will fix any rebasing issues.

@stevvooe
Copy link
Contributor Author

@philips This PR, currently, is as close to zero-changes as possible, so let's merge this one, as is. I'll create issues from the other items here.

Dropped WIP

@stevvooe stevvooe changed the title [WIP] spec: split serialization into image and layer spec: split serialization into image and layer Aug 29, 2016
@philips
Copy link
Contributor

philips commented Aug 29, 2016

LGTM

Approved with PullApprove

@jonboulle
Copy link
Contributor

jonboulle commented Aug 30, 2016

lgtm (definitely in need of various improvements per the comments, but let's split this out and follow up)

Approved with PullApprove

@jonboulle jonboulle merged commit c290842 into opencontainers:master Aug 30, 2016
wking added a commit to wking/image-spec that referenced this pull request Sep 9, 2016
71650f2 (spec: split serialization into image and layer, 2016-08-24,
opencontainers#206) pulled layer.md out of serialization.md, but did not update
these links.

While touching the paragraph, reformat to one sentence per line as
requested by the "Markdown style" section in the README.

Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
wking added a commit to wking/image-spec that referenced this pull request Sep 12, 2016
71650f2 (spec: split serialization into image and layer, 2016-08-24,
opencontainers#206) pulled layer.md out of serialization.md, but did not update
these links.

I preferred the more generic "filesystem serialization" wording from
before, because while README readers should understand that we're
serializing the filesystem, they don't need to care about *how* the
filesystem is serialized.  Folks who do care about the serialization
should be reading layer.md.  But Brandon and Jonathan both liked the
"filesystem layers" wording [1], so that's what we have here.

While touching the paragraph, reformat to one sentence per line as
requested by the "Markdown style" section in the README.

[1]: https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/pull/285/files/05370b480e45a790dd86a8e3104e78fe802a786c#r78313284

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

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants