Skip to content

Conversation

@wking
Copy link
Contributor

@wking wking commented May 24, 2016

The bundle contains config.json and other things, but this schema is just for config.json. This is mostly:

$ sed -i 's|/bundle|/runtime/config|' schema/*.json

for the id fields, but I also tweaked root.description and config.json's description.

@wking wking force-pushed the bundle-to-runtime-config branch from ceb4efb to 05fbfa3 Compare May 24, 2016 22:34
The bundle contains 'config.json' and other things, but this schema is
just for 'config.json'.  This is mostly:

  $ sed -i 's|/bundle|/runtime/config|' schema/*.json

for the 'id' fields, but I also tweaked 'root.description' and the
schema.json 'description'.

Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <[email protected]>
@wking wking force-pushed the bundle-to-runtime-config branch from 05fbfa3 to cccd9fc Compare May 24, 2016 22:37
@wking
Copy link
Contributor Author

wking commented May 24, 2016

Another PR nibbled off of #423 (like #435, #451, and #452).

@mrunalp
Copy link
Contributor

mrunalp commented May 25, 2016

Hmm, not sure @vbatts WDYT?

@crosbymichael
Copy link
Member

-1

We are NOT getting rid of the bundle concept at this point.

@crosbymichael
Copy link
Member

We already discussed this on the call and agreed on keeping it.

@wking
Copy link
Contributor Author

wking commented May 25, 2016

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:54:06AM -0700, Michael Crosby wrote:

We are NOT getting rid of the bundle concept at this point.

This commit was not about getting rid of the bundle concept (although
it helps with that). It was “these schemas are for the runtime's
config.json”. I'm pretty sure we aren't using them to validate the
bundle as a whole.

To make the distinction more clear, I'll file a PR to add JSON Schema
for the state JSON (also part of the runtime spec, but clearly not
part of a bundle).

wking added a commit to wking/opencontainer-runtime-spec that referenced this pull request Jun 1, 2016
To make it clear that these schemas are for validating config.json
(and not, for example, state JSON).  I've left the IDs alone for now,
because my PR adjusting those was rejected [1].

[1]: opencontainers#453

Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <[email protected]>
wking added a commit to wking/opencontainer-runtime-spec that referenced this pull request Jun 3, 2016
To make it clear that these schemas are for validating config.json
(and not, for example, state JSON).  I've left the IDs alone for now,
because my PR adjusting those was rejected [1].

The rule for the -schema portion is "use it for entrypoint files" [2].

[1]: opencontainers#453
[2]: opencontainers#481 (comment)

Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <[email protected]>
wking added a commit to wking/opencontainer-runtime-spec that referenced this pull request Jun 6, 2016
To make it clear that these schemas are for validating config.json
(and not, for example, state JSON).  I've left the IDs alone for now,
because my PR adjusting those was rejected [1].

The rule for the -schema portion is "use it for entrypoint files" [2].

[1]: opencontainers#453
[2]: opencontainers#481 (comment)

Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <[email protected]>
wking added a commit to wking/opencontainer-runtime-spec that referenced this pull request Jun 9, 2016
To make it clear that these schemas are for validating config.json
(and not, for example, state JSON).  I've left the IDs alone for now,
because my PR adjusting those was rejected [1].

The rule for the -schema portion is "use it for entrypoint files" [2].

[1]: opencontainers#453
[2]: opencontainers#481 (comment)

Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <[email protected]>
Mashimiao pushed a commit to Mashimiao/specs that referenced this pull request Aug 19, 2016
To make it clear that these schemas are for validating config.json
(and not, for example, state JSON).  I've left the IDs alone for now,
because my PR adjusting those was rejected [1].

The rule for the -schema portion is "use it for entrypoint files" [2].

[1]: opencontainers#453
[2]: opencontainers#481 (comment)

Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <[email protected]>
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.

3 participants