On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 6:31 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Mike Jumper 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
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Mike Jumper 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
On Sep 6, 2016 5:38 PM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Or, matching up with our (post-graduation) Git repo naming
> convention again:
>
> apache/guacamole
> apache/guacamole-guacd
>
> apache/guacamole:0.9.10-incubating
>
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Mike Jumper wrote:
> All, setting aside the Docker Hub vs. Apache-hosted hub vs. bintray
> discussion for the moment,
The issue of hub.docker.com/r/apache/* has been worked out in principle with
Infra. Only official releases will be be
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 9:28 PM, Mike Jumper wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Mike Jumper wrote:
> > On Aug 28, 2016 5:58 PM, "Roman Shaposhnik" wrote:
> >>
> >> First of all, the way apache org is setup on
thx
On 01.09.2016 21:04, John D. Ament wrote:
Reach out to infra. You can create a JIRA ticket.
John
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:52 PM Jochen Theodorou wrote:
Only partially related to the namespacing problem...
But does somebody here know who to contact if I wanted to
Reach out to infra. You can create a JIRA ticket.
John
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:52 PM Jochen Theodorou wrote:
> Only partially related to the namespacing problem...
>
> But does somebody here know who to contact if I wanted to have a docker
> image on
Only partially related to the namespacing problem...
But does somebody here know who to contact if I wanted to have a docker
image on https://hub.docker.com/u/apache/ ?
bye Jochen
On 29.08.2016 01:21, Mike Jumper wrote:
Hello all,
We, Apache Guacamole (incubating), would like to migrate
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 11:30 AM Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 6:28 PM, John D. Ament
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 8:58 PM Roman Shaposhnik
> > wrote:
> >
> >> First of all, the way apache org is
Jake,
I"m definitely interested in hearing more. I've been off and on trying to
get ActiveMQ Artemis builds up on docker. I haven't gotten quite enough of
an answer from infra, and don't know enough myself to get it working right.
I suspect, from my own artifactory experience, the bintray
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Jake Farrell wrote:
> We have our own docker registry available for projects to use, its hosted
> out of bintray. Access can be granted per project via an infra ticket
> request.
>
> Dockerhub is used in an automated builds capacity, we can
We have our own docker registry available for projects to use, its hosted
out of bintray. Access can be granted per project via an infra ticket
request.
Dockerhub is used in an automated builds capacity, we can set it to only
build tagged versions.
Happy to answer any questions about either
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> 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
On Aug 29, 2016 8:30 AM, "Roman Shaposhnik" wrote:
>
> ...
> >> 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
See my reply to John if you're curious to know my take on both questions.
Thanks,
Roman.
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Mike Jumper wrote:
> On Aug 28, 2016 5:58 PM, "Roman Shaposhnik" wrote:
>>
>> First of all, the way apache org is setup on
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 6:28 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 8:58 PM Roman Shaposhnik
> 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.
Sorry for a lazy question. Can you point me at the proces you have
ant/maven/shell/jenkins/whatever that builds the dockers. I would be
interested in seeing if I can apply that elsewhere.
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Mike Jumper
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> We, Apache
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Mike Jumper wrote:
> On Aug 28, 2016 5:58 PM, "Roman Shaposhnik" 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.
>>
On Aug 28, 2016 5:58 PM, "Roman Shaposhnik" 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
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 8:58 PM Roman Shaposhnik
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
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.
Note that there was a separate discussion focused on where
Hello all,
We, Apache Guacamole (incubating), would like to migrate our project's
Docker images to something beneath the ASF, but I am unsure how to
proceed, nor the form that this migration would best take.
We currently have two repositories which provide Docker images:
22 matches
Mail list logo