search

carpentries-incubator / docker-introduction

Reproducible Computational Environments using Containers
https://carpentries-incubator.github.io/docker-introduction/
Other
42 stars 48 forks source link

Carefully Proof Episodes for Container/Image usage #142

Closed sstevens2 closed 2 years ago

sstevens2 commented 2 years ago

Noticed that the format in the Docker Hub Episode is..

OWNER/CONTAINERNAME:TAG

Where I feel like to be consistent about how we use image vs container it should be

OWNER/IMAGENAME:TAG

This lead me to read this page critically and I noticed a lot of the use of the word "containers" very generally when perhaps we should be saying "container images" to help reinforce the difference between a running container instance and a container image.

Maybe something to work on at next week's sprint?

sstevens2 commented 2 years ago

Then again yesterday I struggled to call running containers by the right term. I accidentally say image a lot.

jcohen02 commented 2 years ago

I think you're quite correct in saying that text in the episode should say:

OWNER/IMAGENAME:TAG

I probably need to check this more carefully in case I'm missing the context but I think this is an error. There are also a few instances of other text saying things like:

But if I wanted to download a Python 3.6 container, I would use this name:

I think to be consistent with the way we explain things earlier in the lesson, this should probably say something like:

But if I wanted to download a Python 3.6 image and run a container from it, I would use this name:

I agree that this terminology is very easy to make a mistake with, I've certainly found that when teaching the Singularity material, and in the above example, the language is possibly starting to get a bit less clear - as you say, something useful to discuss in the sprint.

sstevens2 commented 2 years ago

From the 2021-10-05 Docker sprint: we suggest this issue be proofing all episodes, not only the ones mentioned in the original issue.

ChristinaLK commented 2 years ago

There was definitely an old issue about this (#20) that had to be closed because it got hijacked for another discussion, so glad to see this re-opened.