Hi Joan, Jan, I’m happy to let this pass and get back to the work of getting
3.0 out the door. I’m very appreciative of the work both of you as well as Will
and many others have done to get us to this point.
I agree that the optics of `ibmcom/couchdb3` were not good. We kinda backed
into that o
Heya Adam,
The ends justify the means, really?
There is no disagreement about having binary dev builds are a benefit, if
handled correctly. What is disappointing here is that Joan has mentioned this
specific rule, in just about every other email concerning the automation of
building binaries a
To quote a long time Apache member who's discussing a very similar issue
in parallel over on bui...@apache.org right now:
Downstream users trust Apache because of our provenance rules (per feedback
over the years). Spoiling that assurance, spoils our reputation; that is
kind of at the heart of
Adam,
I didn't specifically go after Will. Will was kind enough to step in and
help, which is great.
Legal has been very, very clear on this. During my time on the board
it's come up as well. We do not want to incur their wrath.
We *cannot* be pushing dev or master builds out to the general
I pushed for a `couchdb3` preview image — heck, I built the first one myself 6
months ago (!) and hosted it in my own Docker Hub account. The upcoming CouchDB
3.0 release is better off for all the little bugs we found and fixed as a
result of those pulls. Appropriately documented, it’s just an a
Thanks Joan for highlighting the problem; the image has been removed from
DockerHub.
On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 17:46, Joan Touzet wrote:
> On 2020-02-03 12:34, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> > Thanks Joan for raising this,
> >
> > I’m throwing in an extra “this is bad” because of the version number.
> 3.0 is
On 2020-02-03 12:34, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
Thanks Joan for raising this,
I’m throwing in an extra “this is bad” because of the version number. 3.0 is
not a thing yet and we have brought that up with several IBMers that calling
anything intermediate “CouchDB3” (this is isn’t the first time) is pr
Thanks Joan for raising this,
I’m throwing in an extra “this is bad” because of the version number. 3.0 is
not a thing yet and we have brought that up with several IBMers that calling
anything intermediate “CouchDB3” (this is isn’t the first time) is problematic
in the CouchDB Slack.
Y’all nee
Bit more context:
12:10 <+Wohali> but we can't have a docker image out there that rides
master available to the public
12:11 <+Wohali> other projects at Apache have been slapped hard on this
12:11 ok - will look at getting it removed (I can't do it myself)
12:11 <+Wohali> thanks. it can go bac
Hi IBM people,
https://hub.docker.com/r/ibmcom/couchdb3
This is a problem, especially because i'm seeing 50K+ pulls on this
image already.
We've not yet released CouchDB 3.0. Any use of this image outside of our
immediate developer community is a direct violation of Apache release
protoco
10 matches
Mail list logo
