Twitter | Search | |
Clayton Coleman
Developer - Kubernetes and OpenShift
110
Tweets
5
Following
910
Followers
Tweets
Clayton Coleman Jul 17
Interesting to contrast Ingress and Pod - Pod provides generic linux processes but can be more complex by process doing arbitrary things outside Kube API. Ingress is LCD across load balancers, but all complexity has to come in annotations. No more generic APIs?
Reply Retweet Like
Clayton Coleman Jul 17
Replying to @mfyk84
Sorry for the delay, it's hard to keep up with PRs. Please keep the contributions coming (hopefully we'll be less slow next time)!
Reply Retweet Like
Clayton Coleman Jun 8
Replying to @liggitt @jbeda
I wood like to know how familiar you are with these hypothetical splinter groups
Reply Retweet Like
Clayton Coleman Jun 8
Replying to @liggitt
I think you need to meat me in the middle here.
Reply Retweet Like
Clayton Coleman Jun 7
Replying to @liggitt
I rebut your argument.
Reply Retweet Like
Clayton Coleman May 20
I think it was just after 1.0 - . And it took 2 years to get them to GA. At 1.0 openshift had I think 20 or 22 Kube-like api extensions, including rbac. Anyway, openshift is a spork of Kubernetes, not a fork. Works with pudding AND steak.
Reply Retweet Like
Clayton Coleman May 20
And ultimately all of that work done outside of the core made crd, api extension, api groups, discovery, generic kubectl possible. And was done by the people who had to extend Kube. Seems silly to design extension without real world consumers.
Reply Retweet Like
Clayton Coleman May 20
Yeah, it was the “do something to get out the door” and not be totally insecure. But we didn’t have api groups then, or tpr. Adding extension points before you make your first use case work is astronaut architecture.
Reply Retweet Like
Clayton Coleman May 20
I don’t think that matches my recollection. We talked about it, said not for 1.0, and punted it down the road. Eric Tune paid attention to the design, we did a bit of back and forth, and then coreos folks took the intiative in 1.3 to start the process in sig auth
Reply Retweet Like
Clayton Coleman May 20
Replying to @alexellisuk
Works ok as long as apps start fast (Django -> MySQL has probs because of retry loops and backoff). Redesign was about CRD use primarily instead of events or annotations. What we didn’t do was comprehensive idle strategy, so is BYO. Ugliest is the patches to Kube-proxy.
Reply Retweet Like
Clayton Coleman May 8
etcd is the bee’s knees - thanks and all the others who have helped build it over the years!
Reply Retweet Like
Clayton Coleman May 8
In case you wondered how Tectonic would integrate with OpenShift - reza lays out the high level details now. Lots of complementary technology between the two Kubernetes distros and we have a ton of exciting operational and usability improvements that will result from the combo.
Reply Retweet Like
Clayton Coleman May 3
We should have caught this when we added protobuf. I think the real mistake was caring too much about performance.
Reply Retweet Like
Clayton Coleman Apr 24
Replying to @abstractionscon
// this code will never fail
Reply Retweet Like
Clayton Coleman retweeted
Brandon Philips Apr 19
Introducing the Vault Operator for Kubernetes. Run and manage Vault on Kubernetes simply and securely. Blog: Github:
Reply Retweet Like
Clayton Coleman Apr 10
Kubernetes right now! Ask everything!
Reply Retweet Like
Clayton Coleman Mar 28
Replying to @JamesMunnelly @thockin
Or we switch to octal!
Reply Retweet Like
Clayton Coleman Mar 28
Replying to @thockin
Although our numbering scheme is clearly undesigned and happenstance. Should have been Kubernetes 1.A.0
Reply Retweet Like
Clayton Coleman Mar 28
Replying to @solomonstre
Without you none of this would have been possible - thank you for inspiring us to look at things in a different way!
Reply Retweet Like
Clayton Coleman Jan 30
OpenShift + Tectonic together will be better than either could be individually. CoreOS folks know what’s important in operating real software.
Reply Retweet Like