On 11 Feb 2016 10:07 am, "Antti Kantee" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 11/02/16 17:41, Martin Lucina wrote: > >> On Thursday, 11.02.2016 at 18:26, Martin Lucina wrote: >>> >>> On Thursday, 11.02.2016 at 17:00, Antti Kantee wrote: >>>> >>>> On 11/02/16 15:07, Martin Lucina wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to announce 'unikernel-runner', which provides a base image you >>>>> can use to build and run rumprun unikernels as Docker containers: >>>> >>>> >>>> Did you consider some less generic name than 'unikernel-runner'? I don't >>>> think the name is reflective of a Docker-specific way to run unikernels. It >>>> will probably end up screwing both those who don't want to use Docker and >>>> those who do want to use it. Reconsidering the name is of course just a >>>> suggestion; what you decide outside of rumpkernel.org is up to you. >>> >>> >>> The repo name follows the Docker image name, so it's not confusing when >>> used in context as "FROM xxxx/unikernel-runner" in a Dockerfile. Having >>> said that, I'm happy to rename the repo to "docker-unikernel-runner" if you >>> think it'll be less confusing. >> >> >> Github transparently redirects to the new name, so I've renamed the >> repository to 'docker-unikernel-runner', better sooner than later. Thanks >> for pointing it out. > > > I would've simplified that as "unikernel-docker", which to me conveys the same info. That said, I don't know if Docker has restrictions on how one is allowed to use the word "docker", or how that would look like in a Dockerfile. It's actually a bit weird if the common idiom is to not include "docker" in docker-specific projects. > > In any case, now the name is much more reflective of the purpose of the tool, and at least in my subjective opinion an improvement. >
The github name does not have to be the same as the docker hub name, which can reasonably omit docker....
