On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Greg Stein 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 na
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Greg Stein 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
I'll point out that there was a discussion around docker and podlings back
over the summer, [1].
It appears that Greg is correct, it has not been presented to infra yet,
but the IPMC has moved forward on a proposal which seemed to be to allow
guacamole to publish as "apache/guacamole". I see no r
Hi
Deploying containers to Docker hub IMHO is the same as deploying Java artefacts
to Maven or Node.JS modules to NPM or whatever. It is a release of a
convenience binary in addition to the official source release.
As such:
+1 to supporting Docker, just like Maven Repositories or NPM repositor
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.
As per Greg Stein's comment in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13156, we haven't had any
podling request for a docker image (aka a "convenience binary") to be
published within Apache's namespace in hub.docker.com .
Starting this thread to see if we should have a vote on for this or we
