Open mojavelinux opened 5 years ago
👍 I'm on it.
About the "official" image, the process on Docker side is quite tedious:
build-args
No Multi stage builds
keep in mind that we might keep both asciidoctor/asciidoctor
and ascidoctor
images
(I'm thinking about the jenkins
image which moved to jenkins/jenkins
or the amount of work required for us at Containous for the traefik
official image...)
Thanks for the insight @dduportal! If it would restrict us too much, then I say we don't want to pursue the official image...at least not now. We could also consider a simpler image for that purpose, as you suggested, if we really want to hold that spot.
How about to have properly tagged images there too ? ;)
Could you file a separate issue for that?
I stumpled upon this issue while looking for the official asciidoctor image on docker registry.
Is there any progress on this? The issue is exactly one year old.
This is rolled up into #54.
For clarity, the issue #54 will be solved only on the current name.
As soon as the release process will be ok, a new task for renaming the Docker repos and building 2 images (asciidoctor/asciidoctor
and asciidoctor/box
) will be done then.
Currently, the image in the Docker register is asciidoctor/docker-asciidoctor. This name is not consistent with how other Docker images are named. Since this is the official Docker image for Asciidoctor, the name should be asciidoctor/asciidoctor. Let's change it.
We might even want to see if we can become an official image, so we get the name "asciidoctor" all by itself (like ruby). But that might be a next step after resolving the topic at hand.