Actually - after seeing the kind of issues we faced even after my last email 2 days ago -> the issues (and complexity of solutions) might be somewhat intimidating to our users
I personally think we should provide a bridge for our users. While I **strongly** believe DHI approach is good and has strong security implications, some of my users for 3.4.* would prefer to use the "original" setup. I am fine for 3.5 - to drop all kind of legacy images, but I think that might be to ""steep** change - and being able to just switch to `FROM apache/aifrlow:legacy-3.11` is an easy way to address all kinds of incompatibilities. If we got (and we did) 3 library compatibility issues that required a change in how the image uses the base DHI image - our users will have even more of that - and they will reach out to us. Are we ready to handle our user's problems? For me - the easiest approach would be: * here are some general ways and you might follow it * but if you have no time/energy to follow it - the legacy image will keep you running. I would always ask anyone who says "drop it": Are you ready to solve problems of our users if they see problems? My answer is: Yes - try to fix it following our vague instructions, if you fail, use the legacy image for an easy fallback. What is the answer if we decide not to publish legacy image ? Ash, Jed? what would you answer to the users? (and I am not precluding any answer - we just have to remember that this should be the answer PMC is firmly behind, no matter who is answering it) On Fri, Oct 30, 2026 at 7:02 PM Jed Cunningham <[email protected]> wrote: > I still lean toward B, myself. My take is that leaving C as an option > injects some uncertainty for both sides, and offering legacy flavors just > kicks the can down the road. > > DHI is relatively new, so in theory it'll become more stable as time goes > on. >
