I think there is nothing wrong in the project releasing official
`Dockerfile`s... that's just source code, which is what we release.
If Docker or A.N.Other then wants to go and build images from those
`Dockerfile`s then that's fine with me.
On 22 October 2017 at 01:22, Michael Osipov
Am 2017-10-22 um 04:24 schrieb Manfred Moser:
Following up on that remark and my earlier remark that we should NOT make this
official .. here are my remarks:
- so far the only binaries we assemble and call official are the tar.gz and zip
archives (and even that is a gray line since official
Following up on that remark and my earlier remark that we should NOT make this
official .. here are my remarks:
- so far the only binaries we assemble and call official are the tar.gz and zip
archives (and even that is a gray line since official there are only sources
from Apache)
- we do NOT
UTEMY <
> > > >> >
> > > >> > herve.bout...@free.fr>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > >> > great idea
> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > ok, we n
t; >> >
> > >> > > >> > Regards,
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > Hervé
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > Le jeudi 19 octobre 2017, 13:47:45 CEST Mike Drob a écrit :
> > >> > > &g
>> On 2017-10-19 03:50, Carlos Sanchez <c...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> > > >> >> > Arnaud is correct, I sent an email to users@ back on Fri,
> >>
> >> Nov 7,
> >>
> >> > > >> >> 2014,>
> >> > > >
gt; > for
> >> >
> >> > > >> >> their
> >> > > >> >> maintainability.
> >> > > >> >>
> >> > > >> >> Thanks,
> >> > > >> >>
>
t; >
> > >> >> > > We can easily see with him to improve this IMO.>
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > When he started that (several years ago) Docker wasn't
what it
>
> is
>
> > >> &g
gt; > > >> >>
> > > >> >> but>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > > yes they aren't managed directly by the project>
> > > >> >> > >
>
> > >> >> > > We can easily see with him to improve this IMO.>
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > When he started that (several years ago) Docker wasn't what it
> is
> > >> >>
> > >> >> nowadays.>
>
;>
> >> >> > > With docker being mainstream I agree that we can reconsider this.>
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > The docker image build/distribution could perhaps be part of our
> >> >>
> >> >> release>
>
t;
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 4:16 AM, Mike Drob <md...@apache.org>
>> >>
>> >> wrote:>
>> >>
>> >> > > > I guess the natural follow-on question is whether the Maven
>> >>
>> >> co
ural follow-on question is whether the Maven
> >>
> >> community>
> >>
> >> > > > would consider publishing an official set of images? Or
> >>
> >> alternatively>
&g
" <ma...@simpligility.com>
wrote:>
> > >
> > > > No. As you can see from the github URL this is NOT an apache
URL.>
> > > >
> > > > https://github.com/carlossg/docker-maven>
> >
; is
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > nowadays.>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > With docker being mainstream I agree that we can reconsider
> > > >
> > >
gt; > > this.>
> > >
> > > > > > > > The docker image build/distribution could perhaps be part of
> our
> > > > > >
> > > > > > release>
> > > > >
> > The docker image build/distribution could perhaps be part of our
> > > > >
> > > > > release>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > process.>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > WDYT Carlos ?>
&g
gt; > > > > > WDYT Carlos ?>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 4:16 AM, Mike Drob <md...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I guess the natural follow-on qu
; > > > > > I guess the natural follow-on question is whether the Maven
> > >
> > > community>
> > >
> > > > > > would consider publishing an official set of images? Or
> > >
> > > alternatively>
> > >
> > >
protect their brand
> >
> > and>
> >
> > > > > trademarks...>
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2017-10-18 18:36, "Manfred Moser" <ma...@simpligility.com>
> wrote:>
> > > > >
> > > > >
alternatively>
>
> > > > whether they should send a takedown notice to protect their brand
>
> and>
>
> > > > trademarks...>
> > > >
> > > > On 2017-10-18 18:36, "Manfred Moser" <ma...@simpligility.com> wrote:>
> >
21 matches
Mail list logo
