On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Mike Jumper <mike.jum...@guac-dev.org> wrote:
> Is the project-specific organization option not really an option at all
> then? Frowned upon for a TLP, and not to be considered by a podling?
My chief concern so far has been assuring that our nascent Infra-supported
offerings do not conflict with policy. Now that this has been achieved (in
planning, if not yet in implementation), it's easier to speak to your issue.
The main Docker Hub at hub.docker.com is a public-facing downstream
distribution channel -- similar to Maven Central, PyPI, Debian package
management, etc.
It is appropriate to distribute official releases through downstream channels,
but inappropriate to distribute unreleased materials through them. (That's
why having `latest` on hub.docker.com point to git `master` is problematic.)
See Apache's formal Release Policy and Release Distribution Policy documents:
http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy#policy
http://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution#policy
There are an unbounded number of such downstream channels, and there is no way
we are going to formulate specific policies for all of them. Instead, we
primarily rely on people respecting our trademarks: that "Apache Foo", when
obtained from one of these channels, is what the consumer expects.
http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks
One implication is that if you're using the project name for that Docker
Hub account, we'd expect the entire PMC to have access.
Incubating podlings operate under additional constraints, in that the "Apache"
brand needs to be tempered with "incubating" and appropriate disclaimers.
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html
But within those guidelines, the answer is: yes, go ahead. If Infra's
offering is not to your taste, that is.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
