Should we start using Quay.io ?

prvst commented 8 years ago

Following @bgruening suggestions, I did some tests with Quay.io and it is really, much better than the native DockerHub service. So here are some points for us to consider:

Advantages

Better API
Faster (my test image was created and shipped within 10 minutes, compared to DockerHub that is taking from 2 to 6 hours)
Better namespace (here we can have the biodocker namespace, instead of biodckr)

Disadvantages

Looks that the build system is 'repository-centric', I'm not sure how to provide our containers with different versions. In DockerHub I create an Automated Build entry and inside I can specify every Dockerfile that is located on each folder.
Looks like you need an account to use images from Quay.io (see below).

The good thing about this, @ypriverol @bgruening , is that I figured out how to use the native docker client to search and download images from quay.io ( you need to create an account at quay.io )

docker login quay.io
docker search quay.io/comet or docker search quay.io/biodocker

simple as that!

ypriverol commented 8 years ago

@prvst As we decided we will push to both places dockerhub and the quay.io. I fully support that.

prvst commented 8 years ago

@prvst As we decided we will push to both places dockerhub and the quay.io. I fully support that.

I remember, I just added this as a question to put everyone in context.

prvst commented 8 years ago

BTW @ypriverol , if we adopt both, how do we manage the namespace? keep using biodckr in Quay.io too?

ypriverol commented 8 years ago

Yes please is better for integration and understanding.

prvst commented 8 years ago

Yes please is better for integration and understanding.

In any case, I got both under my user control, so we can protect the name.

BioContainers / specs

Should we start using Quay.io ? #57