James E. Blair wrote:
As part of the recent infrastructure work described in http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-January/002026.h... 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)