AFAIK the only official ASF releases are source releases. Everything else is a convenience for users. So that means any Docker repo is also "unofficial" in that they're not ASF releases.
My 2 cents: if we're still talking DockerHub repos, then it shouldn't really matter, operationally, which org they are under. Pro for being under Apache: branding. Con: harder to get a list of all OpenZipkin-related Docker repos. The org currently has 38 repositories (see https://hub.docker.com/u/apache). OpenZipkin has 18 ( https://hub.docker.com/u/openzipkin). We'd be one third of the repos! I think I'm very mildly against moving. On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 11:41 AM Andriy Redko <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Adrian, > > This is a very good question. I haven't run into this yet, but I dug into > the mailing lists/tickets, > found a good use case from Apache Beam [1]. The Apache Booking project > also publishes to official > Docker Hub 'apache' repo, here is the ticket to look at [2]. I think it > should be possible to transfer > and publish Docker repo, though at least for incubation period, they will > be unofficial, you are right. > > [1] https://jira.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-15382 > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-14756 > > Best Regards, > Andriy Redko > > > AC> Hi, all. > > AC> We had some discussions about whether or not the docker repos should > AC> be moved to apache at all. Now would be a good time to revisit this, > AC> before they are transferred. > > AC> Does anyone know pros and cons of apache docker repos? I thought I had > AC> read that they aren't official in any case. > > AC> Best, > AC> -Adrian > > AC> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > AC> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > AC> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
