Hi, We have talked about it a few times in different places. Let's make a decision here. We don't have enough resources to support many docker OSes (technically we only support Debian, Ubuntu, and CentOS but each of them has multiple versions).
Things we have agreed on (my understanding) - for binary release, we are going to choose one OS one version. I remember that Debian 9 was the decision. An open question is: do we want to switch to Debian 10 now? We haven't had a binary release yet, so there is still time. As the main target, I think 1. the image should compile successfully. and 2 the image should be tested: the tools and an example topology. - for source release, we haven't talked about it very much. Personally I feel it is a reasonable expectation that, if we have the Docker file in the core folders, it should at least compile. Otherwise, it's a failed build hence a failed release. We are not going to test run the tools and examples for each release though. Finally, a question about OS versions. I believe at least two releases should be supported because most people don't upgrade to the latest version when it is out in more serious scenarios, hence IMO the second oldest could often be more useful than the latest one from a convenience point of view. On the other hand, this is too flexible, and we will spend time thinking about it again. I think a clear guideline could be helpful to us. For example: - We only include only Debian (popular in the server world) and Ubuntu (popular in servers and workstations). - for the main OS (Debian) we choose the latest to compile and test for our binary release. - for a given OS, only two versions (most likely the most and the second recent releases) are included in the core source code and they need to be fixed ASAP if they don't compile. - OSs and other versions could be included in a special folder and but there is no guarantee that the code will compile. Fixes from the community are welcome. How do you guys think? --ning
