Move implementers page to this repo

opencontainers / artifacts

OCI Artifacts

https://opencontainers.org

Apache License 2.0

224 stars 54 forks source link

Move implementers page to this repo #24

Closed hasheddan closed 3 years ago

hasheddan commented 4 years ago

Adds page for projects or companies currently engaged in efforts to support OCI artifacts.

Signed-off-by: hasheddan georgedanielmangum@gmail.com

hasheddan commented 4 years ago

@mikebrow sounds good! Done :heavy_check_mark:

jzelinskie commented 4 years ago

Files like this get stale quick and there's no real way to validate this list. Can we instead provide something that registries can put on their website/readme?

hasheddan commented 4 years ago

@jzelinskie SGTM, I would recommend removing this link as was the original proposal, what do you think?

mikebrow commented 4 years ago

I'm fine with duping this one to https://github.com/opencontainers/artifacts/pull/4 or approving this edit for now and rebasing #4.

Files like this get stale quick and there's no real way to validate this list.

Intent is to have test cases for validation. As Steve wrote, these are but a couple wip projects being used for a proof of concept.

Can we instead provide something that registries can put on their website/readme?

We can also provide something that registries can put on their website (wip). This PR is just moving the current link from a private repo to this repo.

josephschorr commented 4 years ago

@mikebrow Perhaps we get a test suite added to the OCI Compliance suite behind one of its testing options and just reference that and allow registries to (re)use the same OCI compliance badging?

mikebrow commented 4 years ago

@mikebrow Perhaps we get a test suite added to the OCI Compliance suite behind one of its testing options and just reference that and allow registries to (re)use the same OCI compliance badging?

absolutely.. just need to get along with that suite.. the dist. spec.. and this guidance repo..

In the mean time :-) .. we have a file that has a link to a remote repo. We should discuss the contents in #4 where steve holds the pen.. This pr is just fixing the link.. for the most part (IMO) not the contents of what it's linking to (#4).

Maybe retitle the PR to move the current implementors page to this repo.

hasheddan commented 4 years ago

@mikebrow done :heavy_check_mark:

SteveLasker commented 3 years ago

@hasheddan, has Docker Hub completed the update to support expanded mediaTypes? I realized this PR is referencing some stale content in the definitions-terms.md file. I'd like to merge and fix, but wanted to confirm Docker completed the work. Others were asking for an implementors PR as well.

hasheddan commented 3 years ago

@SteveLasker it appears the work is still in progress (https://github.com/distribution/distribution/pull/2934), though it does look pretty stale at this point. Not sure if this would fall into the category of still "engaging in efforts", but I presume it is still desired, especially with recent CNCF news.

/cc @jdolitsky

jdolitsky commented 3 years ago

Docker Hub is not mentioned in this PR. Distribution (the opensource project) has supported the artifacts stuff since the very beginning, running with default settings.

hasheddan commented 3 years ago

@jdolitsky thanks for the clarification. @SteveLasker I assumed you were talking about distribution since that is what is referenced in implementers.md here, but do we need to ensure that docker hub also supports?

SteveLasker commented 3 years ago

woops, I read docker/distribution as docker hub. Too much multi-tasking. @hasheddan, if you can just change to distribution/distribution, we can go ahead and merge.

hasheddan commented 3 years ago

@SteveLasker done :+1:

SteveLasker commented 3 years ago

LGTM