On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 11:30 AM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 6:28 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 8:58 PM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> > > wrote: > > > >> First of all, the way apache org is setup on GitHub make me 99% sure > >> that the only artifacts allowed there would be release ones. > >> > >> If we agree on that, I see no problem with > >> apache/incubator-foo > >> naming of your *released* Docker images. > >> > > > > There is from an eventually a TLP stand point. apache/guacd and > > apache/incubator-guacd are not the same. I wouldn't be able to migrate > an > > instance from one to the other. I'd actually recommend the incubating > part > > in the version #, similar to what we do for most other artifacts, so that > > it becomes apache/guacd/1.0.0-incubating > > Sure. I was just commenting on the Mike's point of naming an artifact > with a prefix (which WILL be the most clear way to designate an > incubating project). That said version should be borderline OK too, > but I'd like others to chime in first. My problem with version/tag is that > Docker workflow hides it pretty well for most of the default use cases. > Thus the notion of advertising an incubation status *may* be not as > strongly present. > > Well, ok, yes, add a prefix makes it clearer. However, our requirement today in the incubator is to add -incubating in the source release artifact. Maven projects have adopted making it part of their version. i'd be curious why that pattern isn't continued forward here. > >> Note that there was a separate discussion focused on where is the right > >> place for nightly/snapshot Docker builds to be deposited to. > >> > >> Sadly, that discussion bore no fruit :-( > >> > > > > Was there? I would love to get discussing about that. Not for an > > incubating project but for a TLP. I share concerns about "latest" but > > also see benefit to developers being able to use a "LATEST" tagged > > pre-release. > > There was: > https://mail-search.apache.org/members/private-arch/infrastructure/201608.mbox/%3CCA+DCeTG4=yrG8aoj=rvu8o71vjmeutndd5cyjkxialktxwt...@mail.gmail.com%3E > > FWIW, I say that we should just adopt a repository.apache.org approach > and declare that nightly/snapshot Docker images can only be distributed > from our own Docker repo. That way there's absolutely 0 chance anybody > can get them by accident. > > Yes, exactly. Since you can override your dockerhub url, you can point to our private hub on bintray (at least the marketing makes it sound like that works). As long as upstream syncing isn't enabled, that would be awesome to try out. > Thanks, > Roman. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
