On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> 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
> incubator projects in our github namespace as
> github.com/apache/incubator-singa.
This is orthogonal to the podling discussion, but have we settled the issue
of any Docker container being full of not only GPLed binaries, but also,
interesting potential trademark implications along the lines of:
https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/36312.html
The reason I'm raising this is because we're now talking about an official
ASF account on DockerHub which means ramifications are Foundation-level
(not PMC level).
Apologies if it was settled and I missed it.
> But then we also get into an area of "what happens around graduation?" ...
> do we then offer both u/incubator-singa *and* u/singa ? ... If that's
> acceptable, then this may be a simple decision. But for downstream
> stability/continuity reasons would a podling want to *start* at
> docker/u/singa ? ... and that is where I ask if the IPMC is willing to give
> up the incubator- signal within our namespace on docker.
>
> And yes, I recognize the similarity to the concurrent discussion about
> Maven Central artifacts. There are costs/benefits around continuity and
> impacts on downstream users.
I just want to point out that just like with Maven -- you can achieve -incubator
tagging with versions/tags of Docker containers which will solve the naming
issue.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
