Re: [DISCUSS] publishing docker image for podling

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > > Taking off my Infrastructure hat from within that issue, and speaking to > > this from a Foundation policy standpoint ... I think this is

Re: [DISCUSS] publishing docker image for podling

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > Taking off my Infrastructure hat from within that issue, and speaking to > this from a Foundation policy standpoint ... I think this is probably okay, > if the docker image is named (say) u/apache/incubator-singa. We allow >

Re: [DISCUSS] publishing docker image for podling

I'll point out that there was a discussion around docker and podlings back over the summer, [1]. It appears that Greg is correct, it has not been presented to infra yet, but the IPMC has moved forward on a proposal which seemed to be to allow guacamole to publish as "apache/guacamole". I see no

Re: [DISCUSS] publishing docker image for podling

Hi Deploying containers to Docker hub IMHO is the same as deploying Java artefacts to Maven or Node.JS modules to NPM or whatever. It is a release of a convenience binary in addition to the official source release. As such: +1 to supporting Docker, just like Maven Repositories or NPM

Re: [DISCUSS] publishing docker image for podling

Taking off my Infrastructure hat from within that issue, and speaking to this from a Foundation policy standpoint ... I think this is probably okay, if the docker image is named (say) u/apache/incubator-singa. We allow incubator projects in our github namespace as

[DISCUSS] publishing docker image for podling

As per Greg Stein's comment in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13156, we haven't had any podling request for a docker image (aka a "convenience binary") to be published within Apache's namespace in hub.docker.com . Starting this thread to see if we should have a vote on for this or we