potiuk commented on issue #10753: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10753#issuecomment-687645243
@kaxil Indeed - it's not clear, but I think if we name something ' 'release' then it **must** have packaged and signed source code for it. I think that part is crystal clear (fron the 'release policy'). > DEFINITION OF "RELEASE"ΒΆ Generically, a release is anything that is published beyond the group that owns it. For an Apache project, that means any publication outside the development community, defined as individuals actively participating in development or following the dev list. More narrowly, an official Apache release is one which has been endorsed as an "act of the Foundation" by a PMC. My interpretation is that Dockerfile is a source code and part of official source releases. Where Docker Image in the repo is a convenience binary (again definition of it can be found in the Release policy). Helm Chart is a bit of mixture. But no matter what classification it gets (both binary package or sources) it has to be re-buildable and TESTABLE by the user using the sources released providing the user has access to appropriate platforms and tools. Is 3rd party binary image 'platform or tool' - I think not, unless it has some kind of 'officially maintained' status. Clearly Python image in DockerHub has an 'official status' - it is part of the 'Official images' programme by DockerHub, same debian-buster for example. Is astronomerinc pgbouncer an 'official image'? If you apply for such status at DockerHub - sure. If not - I don't think this is something we can our user should base their images on (especially that - like in the real use case I am waiting for your comment about - it cannot be used legally). ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
