Open Stack

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...
>