Hey there,

about a week ago I replaced klaemo/couchdb with an empty image. This was done 
after discussion with Jan and Joan here: 
https://github.com/apache/couchdb-docker/issues/133 
<https://github.com/apache/couchdb-docker/issues/133>

Now, I got an email from npm (see below) telling me that this broke some of 
their enterprise products. 🙊
I've already answered them explaining the situation and asking if they could 
use the official version even if it's one of the unsupported tags of the 1.x 
series.

They followed up by saying they'll try to push out updates using the official 
image:
> We will continue to work on pushing updates using the official image. 
> However, if this does not work, perhaps we can revisit this considering an 
> option which lowers risk while getting some users back on line (such as 
> publishing the official image under  the tag).

Any advice on dealing with this situation?

Cheers,
Clemens

Original message:
> Anfang der weitergeleiteten Nachricht:
> 
> Von: Joel Edwards <j...@npmjs.com <mailto:j...@npmjs.com>>
> Betreff: Hello from npm
> Datum: 20. Februar 2019 um 05:31:10 MEZ
> An: kla...@fastmail.fm <mailto:kla...@fastmail.fm>
> 
> Good evening Clemens,
> 
> My name is Joel Edwards. I work for npm to maintain the public registry and 
> our enterprise product. About a week ago, the klaemo/couchdb image you 
> maintain on Docker Hub was replaced with a no-op image. A legacy enterprise 
> product of ours depends on this image and we now have customers who are 
> affected by its removal.
> 
> We were hoping you might be willing to replace it with a working version in 
> order to restore operation for those who depend on it (we are likely not the 
> only ones affected). We were able to duplicate the image and will be pushing 
> it out to as many customers as we can soon. However, having this restored 
> would be beneficial either as a stop-gap would be much appreciated.
> 
> Please let me know your thoughts and/or concerns if you are concerned about 
> my request.
> 
> Thank you for your consideration.
> 
> Best regards,
> Joel

Reply via email to