On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 8:29 AM, Giuseppe Scrivano <gscri...@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi Dusty, > > Dusty Mabe <du...@dustymabe.com> writes: > >> On 11/06/2017 03:57 AM, Giuseppe Scrivano wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'd like to find a better place where to move the system container[1] >>> images that I am currently building under docker.io/gscrivano. >>> >>> CRI-O and Docker them are already used by the OpenShift installer to get >>> the latest version available. >> >> Are you saying the openshift installer uses docker.io/gscrivano now? > > yes, docker.io/gscrivano/cri-o-centos and docker.io/gscrivano/cri-o-fedora > are used for the CRI-O system container. > > >> I understand that we want upstream images for "latest" content in an upstream >> repository but we have to be careful that people know they shouldn't use it >> in >> production or otherwise rely on these images long term. I think putting them >> under >> projectatomic/ on docker hub might not be clear enough. Ideas: >> >> - create a projectatomic-devel organization and put them under there >> - put them under projectatomic/ but add devel or upstream in the name of >> each image. > > would a tag be enough?
I feel like a tag would be enough. I'd rather not have yet another namespace if possible. The -devel would be slightly better but I believe tagging should suffice. >> Openshift has a set of images they put out to the hub but they also have a >> team of people that do release engineering. One option would be to try to >> get them to agree to own the images and pushes to docker hub under the >> openshift >> namespace. >>> The goal is to build the images automatically on every PR merged. >>> Occasional builds (maybe daily?) will prevent to miss changes in the >>> base layers or in the installed rpms. >> >> Having the latest build pushed automatically to a registry is super useful, >> but mostly for the developers, not as much for users. >> >> I really don't want someone reading a blog post where the author uses these >> images >> and the reader then running them forever. Having "devel" in the name of the >> image >> URI will certainly help with that. Maybe I'm being too difficult. > > I don't think these images should get into the openshift namespace, as > most of them are not really connected to openshift. I agree. While they are used in openshift in specific configurations the images have a wider case of use. > Most of the time, changes to the image are bug fixes. There is not > really much development happening in the system container itself, so I > don't see much disadvantage if these changes are propagated quickly. > Even if we build them on the Fedora registry, they will still not work > "forever" as the Fedora release number is part of the image name. -- Thanks, Steve Milner Atomic | Red Hat | http://projectatomic.io/
