runtime: Drop "not supported by the base OS" loophole #733
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
All of these operations should be supported on all of our compliance-tested platforms. If there are cases where a given OS cannot support one of these operations, it should be discussed in that operation's section, and the "Unless otherwise stated" qualifier makes space for that. But leaving the reader to decide on whether a host OS supports a given operation seems too unstable for a specification. I've also dropped the "OCI compliant" qualifier, because the (not) compliant language in spec.md already ties OCI compliance to the RFC 2119 language. There's no point in mentioning "OCI compliant" outside of that section, because the "MUST" already brings in all of the compliance associations we need. Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
|
LGTM |
1 similar comment
|
LGTM |
Merged
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
All of these operations should be supported on all of our compliance-tested platforms. If there are cases where a given OS cannot support one of these operations, it should be discussed in that operation's section, and the "Unless otherwise stated" qualifier makes space for that. But leaving the reader to decide on whether a host OS supports a given operation seems too unstable for a specification.
I've also dropped the "OCI compliant" qualifier, because the (not) compliant language in
spec.mdalready ties OCI compliance to the RFC 2119 language. There's no point in mentioning "OCI compliant" outside of that section, because the "MUST" already brings in all of the compliance associations we need.