Open Stack

James E. Blair wrote:
> As part of the recent infrastructure work described in
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-January/002026.html
> we now have the ability to fairly easily support uploading of container
> images to the "openstack/" namespace on Docker Hub.  The Infrastructure
> team does have an account on Docker Hub with ownership rights to this
> space.
> 
> It is now fairly simple for us to allow any OpenStack project to upload
> to openstack/$short_name.  As a (perhaps unlikely, but simple) example,
> Nova could upload images to "openstack/nova", including suffixed images,
> such as "openstack/nova-scheduler".
> [...]
> 
> I believe it's within the TC's purview to decide whether this should
> happen, and if so, what policies should govern it (i.e., what projects
> are entitled to upload to openstack/).
> 
> It's possible that the status quo where deployment projects upload to
> their own namespaces (e.g., loci/) while openstack/ remains empty is
> desirable.  However, since we recently gained the technical ability to
> handle this, I thought it worth bringing up.

Thanks for bringing this up.

Each solution has its benefits, and I don't have a super-strong opinion 
on it.

I'm leaning toward status quo: unless we consistently publish containers 
for most (or even all) deliverables, we should keep them in separate 
namespaces. A centralized "openstack" namespace conveys some 
official-ness and completeness -- it would make sense if we published 
all deliverablkes as containers every cycle as part of the release 
management work, for example. If it only contains a few select 
containers published at different times under different rules, it's 
likely to be more confusing than helping...

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)