Date   

Re: The Cloud-Nativity of Serverless

Mark Coleman <mark@...>
 

Thanks for kicking this off Ryan.

To provide a little more context for the rest of the TOC, I worked on the first ServerlessConf with Peter Sbarski (in CC) and Alexis asked if it would be possible to find some knowledgable Serverless folks to start a conversation here in the TOC.

This is the beginning of that conversation.


On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 5:17 PM Ryan S. Brown via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Hello all,

If haven't heard Amazon&others raising a general ruckus about serverless lately, I sincerely hope your vacation to the backwoods was relaxing. ūüėĀ

I'm Ryan, and I've been interested in FaaS/serverless for a while now. Also CC'd on this message are Ben Kehoe (iRobot) and Peter Sbarski (ServerlessConf/A Cloud Guru). Lately, it seems the open-source interest has been picking up significantly in addition to all the use in the public cloud. Just to name a few FaaS/serverless provider projects: Fission[1] & Funktion[2] on Kubernetes, FaaS[3] on Swarm, and standalone OpenWhisk[4] (primarily IBM-driven). Even Microsoft's Azure Functions is OSS.

A cynical observer might say that the MS/IBM efforts are open to help compensate for them starting so late relative to Lambda, but either way the result is a lot of open or nominally open projects in the FaaS/serverless area. And with cloud providers looking to embed their various FaaS deeper into their clouds by integrating their FaaS with cloud-specific events, making their FaaS the way into customizing how their infra reacts to events.

So why am I writing this email? Well I've been thinking about serverless as the next step in "cloud native" developer tooling. Look back to the state of the art in the 00's and you'll see the beginnings of autoscaling/immutable infrastructure, then move ahead a bit to containerized applications, then container schedulers, and you can see a trend towards shorter and shorter lifespans of persistent machines/processes. Function-as-a-Service is another step in that direction where containers live for seconds rather than persistently listening. This trajectory seems pretty intuitive as a developer: as lower layers of the stack become more standard I should be able to automate/outsource management of them.

I'd like to help the TOC think about where (or whether) serverless/FaaS should fit into the CNCF's plans for the future. Do you want to talk about what serverless actually is? Figure out how various OSS fits into a serverless ecosystem? Compare how FaaS provided in the public cloud differs from what users need in a hybrid/on-prem environment? Ask away - Ben, Pete, and I are all here to help out.

Cheers,
Ryan
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc
--
+31 652134960
Co-Founder www.softwarecircus.io
Marketing Chair www.cncf.io


Re: The Cloud-Nativity of Serverless

Anthony Skipper <anthony@...>
 

We would like to see a separate group working on serverless as well.   At Galactic Fog we have had a serverless implementation on DCOS for about 6 months, and we plan to release our Kubernetes native implementation in the next couple weeks in the runup to dockercon. 

From our perspective we would like the following things: 

  1.  Agreement on marketing terms.  (Call it Serverless or Lambda, everyone hates FAAS, but serverless is problematic as well)
  2.  Agreement on core capabilities, from our perspective they are:
    1. Runtime Support
    2. API Gateway Support
    3. Config / Secret Capabilities
    4. Security Implementation
    5. Logging Support
    6. Monitoring Support
    7. Performance/Scalability  Capabilities (eg. Gestalt and Fission are a couple order of magnitude faster than Amazon, and that changes the art of the possible) 
  3. None Core Capabilities
    1. Ability to inter-operate between serverless implementations (eg, migration between them, include up to ad back from public cloud)
    2. Lambda Chaining 
    3. Data management capabilities (exposing filesystems or other services in)
    4. Making the implementation of the serveless solution portable across platforms.
    5. Data Layer Integration approaches.

I wouldn't worry to much about the other big vendor stuff right now.  Serverless is at such an early stage any R&D done by anyone is really helpful and not really competitive or problematic.   (eg Openwhisk has really cool ideas, and Amazon's attempts to standardize lambda portability show an approach that is helpful for discussion) 


Regards,

Anthony


   

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Ryan S. Brown via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Hello all,

If haven't heard Amazon&others raising a general ruckus about serverless lately, I sincerely hope your vacation to the backwoods was relaxing. ūüėĀ

I'm Ryan, and I've been interested in FaaS/serverless for a while now. Also CC'd on this message are Ben Kehoe (iRobot) and Peter Sbarski (ServerlessConf/A Cloud Guru). Lately, it seems the open-source interest has been picking up significantly in addition to all the use in the public cloud. Just to name a few FaaS/serverless provider projects: Fission[1] & Funktion[2] on Kubernetes, FaaS[3] on Swarm, and standalone OpenWhisk[4] (primarily IBM-driven). Even Microsoft's Azure Functions is OSS.

A cynical observer might say that the MS/IBM efforts are open to help compensate for them starting so late relative to Lambda, but either way the result is a lot of open or nominally open projects in the FaaS/serverless area. And with cloud providers looking to embed their various FaaS deeper into their clouds by integrating their FaaS with cloud-specific events, making their FaaS the way into customizing how their infra reacts to events.

So why am I writing this email? Well I've been thinking about serverless as the next step in "cloud native" developer tooling. Look back to the state of the art in the 00's and you'll see the beginnings of autoscaling/immutable infrastructure, then move ahead a bit to containerized applications, then container schedulers, and you can see a trend towards shorter and shorter lifespans of persistent machines/processes. Function-as-a-Service is another step in that direction where containers live for seconds rather than persistently listening. This trajectory seems pretty intuitive as a developer: as lower layers of the stack become more standard I should be able to automate/outsource management of them.

I'd like to help the TOC think about where (or whether) serverless/FaaS should fit into the CNCF's plans for the future. Do you want to talk about what serverless actually is? Figure out how various OSS fits into a serverless ecosystem? Compare how FaaS provided in the public cloud differs from what users need in a hybrid/on-prem environment? Ask away - Ben, Pete, and I are all here to help out.

Cheers,
Ryan

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



The Cloud-Nativity of Serverless

Ryan S. Brown <ryansb@...>
 

Hello all,

If haven't heard Amazon&others raising a general ruckus about serverless lately, I sincerely hope your vacation to the backwoods was relaxing. ūüėĀ

I'm Ryan, and I've been interested in FaaS/serverless for a while now. Also CC'd on this message are Ben Kehoe (iRobot) and Peter Sbarski (ServerlessConf/A Cloud Guru). Lately, it seems the open-source interest has been picking up significantly in addition to all the use in the public cloud. Just to name a few FaaS/serverless provider projects: Fission[1] & Funktion[2] on Kubernetes, FaaS[3] on Swarm, and standalone OpenWhisk[4] (primarily IBM-driven). Even Microsoft's Azure Functions is OSS.

A cynical observer might say that the MS/IBM efforts are open to help compensate for them starting so late relative to Lambda, but either way the result is a lot of open or nominally open projects in the FaaS/serverless area. And with cloud providers looking to embed their various FaaS deeper into their clouds by integrating their FaaS with cloud-specific events, making their FaaS the way into customizing how their infra reacts to events.

So why am I writing this email? Well I've been thinking about serverless as the next step in "cloud native" developer tooling. Look back to the state of the art in the 00's and you'll see the beginnings of autoscaling/immutable infrastructure, then move ahead a bit to containerized applications, then container schedulers, and you can see a trend towards shorter and shorter lifespans of persistent machines/processes. Function-as-a-Service is another step in that direction where containers live for seconds rather than persistently listening. This trajectory seems pretty intuitive as a developer: as lower layers of the stack become more standard I should be able to automate/outsource management of them.

I'd like to help the TOC think about where (or whether) serverless/FaaS should fit into the CNCF's plans for the future. Do you want to talk about what serverless actually is? Figure out how various OSS fits into a serverless ecosystem? Compare how FaaS provided in the public cloud differs from what users need in a hybrid/on-prem environment? Ask away - Ben, Pete, and I are all here to help out.

Cheers,
Ryan


Re: [RESULT] rkt project accepted (incubation)

alexis richardson
 

Congratulations to the rkt team :)


On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, 08:55 Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc, <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Hey everyone, I'm thrilled to announce that rkt (https://github.com/coreos/rkt) has been accepted as a CNCF incubation level project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/33

binding +1 TOC votes (8/9):


non-binding +1 community votes:

Thanks again to everyone who voted and lets welcome rkt to the CNCF family, we'll be working with them over the next few weeks to give them a new home! 

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


Re: [RESULT] containerd project accepted (incubation)

alexis richardson
 

Great news, congratulations containerd!


On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, 08:52 Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc, <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Hey everyone, I'm thrilled to announce that containerd (http://containerd.io/) has been accepted as a CNCF incubation level project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/32

binding +1 TOC votes (8/9): 


non-binding +1 community votes:
- Gianluca Arbezzano: https://lists.cncf.io/pipermail/cncf-toc/2017-March/000732.html- George Okrokvertskhov: https://lists.cncf.io/pipermail/cncf-toc/2017-March/000738.html

Thanks again to everyone who voted and lets welcome containerd to the CNCF family, we'll be working with them over the next few weeks to give them a new home!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


[RESULT] rkt project accepted (incubation)

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Hey everyone, I'm thrilled to announce that rkt (https://github.com/coreos/rkt) has been accepted as a CNCF incubation level project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/33

binding +1 TOC votes (8/9):


non-binding +1 community votes:
- John Belmaric: https://lists.cncf.io/pipermail/cncf-toc/2017-March/000746.html

Thanks again to everyone who voted and lets welcome rkt to the CNCF family, we'll be working with them over the next few weeks to give them a new home! 

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


[RESULT] containerd project accepted (incubation)

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Hey everyone, I'm thrilled to announce that containerd (http://containerd.io/) has been accepted as a CNCF incubation level project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/32

binding +1 TOC votes (8/9): 


non-binding +1 community votes:
- Gianluca Arbezzano: https://lists.cncf.io/pipermail/cncf-toc/2017-March/000732.html- George Okrokvertskhov: https://lists.cncf.io/pipermail/cncf-toc/2017-March/000738.html

Thanks again to everyone who voted and lets welcome containerd to the CNCF family, we'll be working with them over the next few weeks to give them a new home!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: [VOTE] rkt project proposal (incubation)

Solomon Hykes
 

+1


On Friday, March 24, 2017, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
The TOC has decided to invite rkt (https://github.com/coreos/rkt) as an incubation level CNCF project, sponsored by Brian Grant from the TOC:

rkt is an application container engine developed for modern production cloud-native environments. It features a pod-native approach, a pluggable execution architecture, and a well-defined surface area that makes it ideal for integration with other systems.

Please vote (+1/0/-1) on the full project proposal located here on GitHub: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/33

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

Thanks!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: [VOTE] containerd project proposal (incubation)

Solomon Hykes
 

+1

Very excited to see this come together.


On Thursday, March 23, 2017, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
The TOC has decided to invite containerd (http://containerd.io/) as an incubation level CNCF project, sponsored by Brian Grant from the TOC:

containerd is a widely used container runtime with an emphasis on simplicity, robustness and portability. It is available as a daemon for Linux and Windows, which can manage the complete container lifecycle of its host system: image transfer and storage, container execution and supervision, and low-level storage, etc..

Please vote (+1/0/-1) on the full project proposal located here on GitHub: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/32/files

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

Thanks!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: [VOTE] rkt project proposal (incubation)

Brian Grant
 

+1

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
The TOC has decided to invite rkt (https://github.com/coreos/rkt) as an incubation level CNCF project, sponsored by Brian Grant from the TOC:

rkt is an application container engine developed for modern production cloud-native environments. It features a pod-native approach, a pluggable execution architecture, and a well-defined surface area that makes it ideal for integration with other systems.

Please vote (+1/0/-1) on the full project proposal located here on GitHub: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/33

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

Thanks!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



Re: [VOTE] containerd project proposal (incubation)

Brian Grant
 

+1

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 5:58 AM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
The TOC has decided to invite containerd (http://containerd.io/) as an incubation level CNCF project, sponsored by Brian Grant from the TOC:

containerd is a widely used container runtime with an emphasis on simplicity, robustness and portability. It is available as a daemon for Linux and Windows, which can manage the complete container lifecycle of its host system: image transfer and storage, container execution and supervision, and low-level storage, etc..

Please vote (+1/0/-1) on the full project proposal located here on GitHub: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/32/files

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

Thanks!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



Re: Changing meeting?

alexis richardson
 

Aha.  Hold that thought please!


On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, 14:39 Jonathan Boulle, <jonathan.boulle@...> wrote:
My schedule has shifted slightly, so 0800PT Tuesday would work for me.

On 28 March 2017 at 13:25, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
We got stuck on times of day.  Tuesday was the leading candidate, with
PT 0800, 0830, 0900 as leading slots.




On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Camille Fournier via cncf-toc
<cncf-toc@...> wrote:
> Were we planning to change the meeting day? What happened to that?
>
> _______________________________________________
> cncf-toc mailing list
> cncf-toc@...
> https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc
>
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


Re: Changing meeting?

Jonathan Boulle <jonathan.boulle@...>
 

My schedule has shifted slightly, so 0800PT Tuesday would work for me.

On 28 March 2017 at 13:25, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
We got stuck on times of day.  Tuesday was the leading candidate, with
PT 0800, 0830, 0900 as leading slots.




On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Camille Fournier via cncf-toc
<cncf-toc@...> wrote:
> Were we planning to change the meeting day? What happened to that?
>
> _______________________________________________
> cncf-toc mailing list
> cncf-toc@...
> https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc
>
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


Re: Changing meeting?

alexis richardson
 

We got stuck on times of day. Tuesday was the leading candidate, with
PT 0800, 0830, 0900 as leading slots.




On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Camille Fournier via cncf-toc
<cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io> wrote:
Were we planning to change the meeting day? What happened to that?

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


Changing meeting?

Camille Fournier
 

Were we planning to change the meeting day? What happened to that?


Re: Heron

Karthik Ramasamy <kramasamy@...>
 

Thanks Chris. Apologies for responding late. 

- Heron is designed to be container friendly. Currently we run Heron as a cgroup container in Mesos/Aurora (which is our production environment). 

- There are already two PRs which extends Heron to use docker so that a Heron job can be run as a collection of docker instances. 

- While we did just Storm API for Twitter’s needs, Heron design is extensible - in the sense, we can map any API on top of Heron easily. We have a clear distinction between DAG generation and DAG execution. This is the subject of a paper that got accepted in ICDE 2017. Happy to share a copy if needed.

- We are also in the process of implementing exactly once (which requires state storage). Current implementations of exactly once is very messy in other streaming systems since they use Hadoop and very difficult to achieve low latency. If Kubernetes supports container portability (with storage), we will be first one to take advantage of it. I know one company that implements containers with storage portability (robinsystems.com).

- Heron also runs in AWS in the Fabric division of Twitter (which was acquired by Google) a couple of months ago. We are in the process of making it natively run in ECS (EC2 docker container service) at AWS due to request by a customer. This is pretty straight forward to implement due to extensible design of Heron.

- Finally, we published performance numbers for Heron after some simple optimizations. We can do a latency of 20 ms (but in reality we have pushed it 13 ms) and also high throughput. The blog is  https://blog.twitter.com/2017/optimizing-twitter-heron. - Heron is the fastest and low latency engine in the market right now and we have another 4-5x to go. Heron provides the price/performance as of now.

Let me know if you have any questions.

cheers
/karthik

On Mar 17, 2017, at 8:04 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

+Karthik to make sure he sees these emails as a chance to give feedback.

If I recall from the call that was a question that BrianG may have asked. Karthik mentioned some things of why CNCF (vs other places) but I'll defer to him to answer any questions as he's the project representative.

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Jonathan Boulle via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

I would echo Brian's sentiments - I also have some concerns about Heron's cloud-native suitability and path to integration with any of the existing or proposed CNCF projects; I think it's still hard for me to understand why we're a more suitable choice than Apache.

Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> schrieb am Fr., 17. März 2017, 11:56:
Moving Heron to new thread.

All - comments on Heron?  I think Brian raises some good questions
about alignment with our mission (below).




On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 3:56 AM, Quinton Hoole via cncf-toc
<cncf-toc@...> wrote:
..
> I don’t know enough about Heron and the related ecosystem to have an on that
> opinion yet.
>
> Q
>
> From:  Brian Grant via cncf-toc
....
> As for Heron, I'm not seeing the demand for Storm/Heron. For example, Google
> trends:
>
> https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=%2Fm%2F0ndhxqz,Apache%20Storm,%2Fm%2F0fdjtq
>
>
>
> Spark still has a lot of steam, and AIUI the trend (e.g., using Apache Beam)
> is towards unified batch and streaming.
>
>
>
> More broadly, though, I would like to see CNCF become a good home for
> container/orchestrator-friendly data-processing platforms, as that critical
> category of workloads benefits from closer integration with the underlying
> orchestration platform.
>
>
>
> --Brian
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cncf-toc mailing list
> cncf-toc@...
> https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc
>
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: [VOTE] rkt project proposal (incubation)

Alexander Gehr
 

+1


On 03/26/2017 07:13 PM, Randy Abernethy via cncf-toc wrote:

+1 non binding


On 2017-03-24 09:30, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc wrote:
The TOC has decided to invite rkt (https://github.com/coreos/rkt)?as an incubation level CNCF project, sponsored by Brian Grant from the TOC:

rkt is an application container engine developed for modern production cloud-native environments. It features a pod-native approach, a pluggable execution architecture, and a well-defined surface area that makes it ideal for integration with other systems.

Please vote (+1/0/-1) on the full project proposal located here on GitHub: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/33

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

Thanks!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

-- 
Randy Abernethy
Managing Partner
RX-M, LLC
randy.abernethy@...
o 415-800-2922
c 415-624-6447


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


Re: [VOTE] rkt project proposal (incubation)

Randy Abernethy
 

+1 non binding


On 2017-03-24 09:30, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc wrote:
The TOC has decided to invite rkt (https://github.com/coreos/rkt)?as an incubation level CNCF project, sponsored by Brian Grant from the TOC:

rkt is an application container engine developed for modern production cloud-native environments. It features a pod-native approach, a pluggable execution architecture, and a well-defined surface area that makes it ideal for integration with other systems.

Please vote (+1/0/-1) on the full project proposal located here on GitHub: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/33

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

Thanks!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

-- 
Randy Abernethy
Managing Partner
RX-M, LLC
randy.abernethy@...
o 415-800-2922
c 415-624-6447


Re: [VOTE] containerd project proposal (incubation)

Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>
 

+1

         - Bryan


On Mar 23, 2017 5:58 AM, "Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc" <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
The TOC has decided to invite containerd (http://containerd.io/) as an incubation level CNCF project, sponsored by Brian Grant from the TOC:

containerd is a widely used container runtime with an emphasis on simplicity, robustness and portability. It is available as a daemon for Linux and Windows, which can manage the complete container lifecycle of its host system: image transfer and storage, container execution and supervision, and low-level storage, etc..

Please vote (+1/0/-1) on the full project proposal located here on GitHub: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/32/files

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

Thanks!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


Re: [VOTE] rkt project proposal (incubation)

Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>
 

+1

          - Bryan


On Mar 24, 2017 9:30 AM, "Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc" <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
The TOC has decided to invite rkt (https://github.com/coreos/rkt) as an incubation level CNCF project, sponsored by Brian Grant from the TOC:

rkt is an application container engine developed for modern production cloud-native environments. It features a pod-native approach, a pluggable execution architecture, and a well-defined surface area that makes it ideal for integration with other systems.

Please vote (+1/0/-1) on the full project proposal located here on GitHub: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/33

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

Thanks!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

6201 - 6220 of 6984