DOC: dockerio module: docs syntax and formatting

[westurner]

No description provided.

[westurner]

@techhat @thatch45 @kiorky

[techhat]

Since Docker is looking at implementing container types other than LXC, we should probably be careful how we present that.

[westurner]

Do you have a link re: docker implementing container types other than LXC?

• https://github.com/dotcloud/docker/search?q=LXC
• http://docs.docker.io/en/latest/
• _{https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Docker}

EDIT: http://docs.docker.io/en/latest/installation/kernel/#cgroups-and-namespaces

[westurner]

refs #7519 Add a Docker module

[techhat]

@westurner, looking for the reference, I'll post it as soon as I can.

[kiorky]

Yep docker want multiple backends for almost everything, this started with storages, and is continuing to all of its key parts.

And indeed, The next most wanted achievement for the docker team is also if i understood well to enable multiple backends as virtualisation layer, aka lxc, libvirt, jails, zones, etc.

REF: http://fr.slideshare.net/yandex/lightweight-virtualization-with-linux-containers-and-docker-jerome-petazzoni-dotcloud slide 68 but you can confirm it with a little bit of search or ask in #docker on irc.

I definitely had not understood at all anything in your review, we may have a chat if you want to improve the module. Think that

For the time being, i do not have time to work on it, i hope rebeing on that front in the late january.

/cc @regilero

[westurner]

So would it be fair to describe docker as currently an extension of Linux Containers, cgroups, and the Linux kernel with future aims to support different virtualization technologies on other platforms than Linux?

Thank you for the roadmap [...]

[westurner]

I definitely had not understood at all anything in your review, we may have a chat if you want to improve the module. Think that

For the time being, i do not have time to work on it, i hope rebeing on that front in the late january.

Please feel free to use any or none of the clarified documentation in this PR if/when you decide to merge in the latest version of the dockerio salt state.

[kiorky]

No we just have to synchronise more directly, i hate asynchronous review in fact ^^.

Where do you want for us to have a talk ?

[kiorky]

@westurner , i am always never hostile and on the contrary friendly to any contribution :-),
Any way i implemented it but have no rights and per so no word at all on salt's repo ^^.

[techhat]

@westurner, I'm not going to stop this based on the LXC comment; if it needs to be updated later, it can be. The XXX TODO lines in here don't fill me with confidence; I would like to see those resolved (as much as possible) before merging. But it looks like you and @kiorky have a fruitful conversation happening here, so I will await the results of that.

[westurner]

AFAIU, this is blocked until late january?

For the time being, i do not have time to work on it, i hope rebeing on that front in the late january.

[thatch45]

I am going to merge this and then do some cleanup

[kiorky]

@thatch45 There were blockers (errrors in docs), did you saw the repo collab ?

[thatch45]

I am cleaning it up :)

[westurner]

Thanks!

Wes Turner
On Dec 20, 2013 1:04 PM, "Thomas S Hatch" notifications@github.com wrote:

I am cleaning it up :)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/9294#issuecomment-31033248
.

[thatch45]

Ok, I just pushed a clean up:
f4a4378

[kiorky]

Yep, but i do not saw anything of the peer review included in the changeset or did i missed something ?