Move implementers page to this repo#24
Conversation
mikebrow
left a comment
mikebrow
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's go ahead and bring that file into the repo on this PR with a small edit.. s/Projects or companies currently supporting OCI Artifacts/Projects or companies currently engaged in efforts to support OCI Artifacts/
|
@mikebrow sounds good! Done ✔️ |
|
Files like this get stale quick and there's no real way to validate this list. |
|
@jzelinskie SGTM, I would recommend removing this link as was the original proposal, what do you think? |
|
I'm fine with duping this one to #4 or approving this edit for now and rebasing #4.
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.
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. |
|
@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. |
|
@mikebrow done ✔️ |
|
@hasheddan, has Docker Hub completed the update to support expanded |
|
@SteveLasker it appears the work is still in progress (distribution/distribution#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 |
|
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. |
|
@jdolitsky thanks for the clarification. @SteveLasker I assumed you were talking about distribution since that is what is referenced in |
|
woops, I read docker/distribution as docker hub. Too much multi-tasking. |
hasheddan
force-pushed
the
implementors
branch
from
7343a81 to
4696b07
Compare
|
@SteveLasker done 👍 |
implementers.md
Outdated
| Projects or companies currently engaged in efforts to support OCI Artifacts | ||
|
|
||
| * [Azure Container Registry](https://aka.ms/acr/artifacts) | ||
| * [distribution/distribution](https://github.com/distribution/distribution/) - the reference implementation of the [OCI Distribution Spec][distribution-spec] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we should drop "the reference implementation"
Adds page for projects or companies currently engaged in efforts to support OCI artifacts. Signed-off-by: hasheddan <georgedanielmangum@gmail.com>
hasheddan
force-pushed
the
implementors
branch
from
4696b07 to
ae58be6
Compare
|
LGTM |
6 participants
Adds page for projects or companies currently engaged in efforts to
support OCI artifacts.
Signed-off-by: hasheddan georgedanielmangum@gmail.com