On Mon, 2019-01-28 at 13:06 +0000, Chris Dent wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019, Thierry Carrez wrote:
I'm leaning toward status quo: unless we consistently publish containers for most (or even all) deliverables, we should keep them in separate namespaces.
That makes a lot of sense but another way to look at it is:
If we start publishing some containers into a consistent namespace it might encourage projects to start owning "blessed" containers of themselves, which is probably a good thing. well that raises the question of what type of containter someinthing like opesntac/nova should be
a kolla container a loci container lxd containers a container build with pbr the way zuul is published. someting else determined by the porject? having yet another way to build openstack container is proably not a good thing. even if a common way of building the container was agreed on there is also the question of what base os is it derived form. finding a vender neutral answer to the above that does not "play favorites" with projects, distros or technologies will be challenging.
And having a location with vacancies might encourage people to fill\ it, whereas otherwise the incentive is weak.
there are already pretty complete set of offical containers from the kolla project on dockerhub here https://hub.docker.com/u/kolla/ and less so from loci here https://hub.docker.com/u/loci and https://hub.docker.com/u/gantry
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...
The current container situation is already pretty confusing...