On Aug 28, 2016 5:58 PM, "Roman Shaposhnik" <ro...@shaposhnik.org> 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 your *released* Docker images.
>
I definitely have no problem with adopting a "incubator-" prefix in
principle.
That said, released Maven artifacts for incubating projects are normally
named without the "incubator-" prefix, instead requiring "-incubating" as a
suffix for the version of the artifact.
Would that convention make sense here as well, with the incubating status
being given via the Docker image tag?
ie:
apache/foo:0.1.0-incubating
rather than:
apache/incubator-foo:0.1.0
?
> 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 :-(
>
That is unfortunate. Perhaps this one will?
The Incubator's release management guide has recommendations for version
numbering of non-release artifacts:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#notes-numbering-between-releases
Given that, wouldn't some explicit snapshot naming for the image tag be
sufficient for non-release automated builds from git?
I'd even argue that Docker Hub's automated build system is a third party
hosted CI, and that images produced through that system are no more
inherently release-specific than the artifacts of a Jenkins build. Release
vs. non-release should be declared through image tags, not its presence on
Docker Hub alone.
- Mike
