<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif">Based on what I've seen on this thread so far, I think there's a general consensus that:<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif">1) the long form names are useful in certain situations<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif">2) the short form also have value<br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif">and as such, we should simply use the alias approach so we can advertise and reference the images in the most appropriate way for the context/requirements of different scenarios.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif">Therefore I'm proceeding with updating the openshift v3 release to assume the long form names will be available:<br><a href="https://github.com/openshift/origin/pull/5409">https://github.com/openshift/origin/pull/5409</a><br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif"><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Daniel Riek <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:riek@redhat.com" target="_blank">riek@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">FWITW, I agree with Michal and Honza here.<div><br></div><div>There were 2 primary reasons to include the Platformdifferentiator:</div><div>* As stated in the policy [1], the primary purpose was to allow builders of layered images to understand what underlying platform they would be using and give them explicit control.</div><div>* In addition we wanted to ensure that the RHEL name show-up in searches (one of the reasons why this is a cert requirement).</div><div><br></div><div>[1] <a href="https://github.com/projectatomic/ContainerApplicationGenericLabels/blob/master/vendor/redhat/names.md" target="_blank">https://github.com/projectatomic/ContainerApplicationGenericLabels/blob/master/vendor/redhat/names.md</a></div><div><br></div><div>Daniel</div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div><br>On Friday, October 23, 2015, Honza Horak <<a href="mailto:hhorak@redhat.com" target="_blank">hhorak@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 10/22/2015 01:10 PM, Michal Fojtik wrote:<br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> I think the question here is really how we will tag the ruby/python/etc<br> images then.<br> Now we deal just with centos7, so we can have centos/ruby-20 (or<br> centos/ruby even).<br> How when centos8 will be out, centos/ruby-20 will be based on centos8?<br> What will happen<br> to centos7 images? How users will know what base those images have? ;-)<br> </blockquote> <br> Thank you for rephrasing, that's basically my point all the time. We just need to be able to distinguish it somehow, even if it is crucial only for part of the users and others will ignore it.<br> <br> Honza<br> <br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Honza Horak <<a>hhorak@redhat.com</a><br> <mailto:<a>hhorak@redhat.com</a>>> wrote:<br> <br> I expect we want the centos-based images be run everywhere, not only<br> centos, but on Fedora, Debian or even Windows if possible.<br> <br> Honza<br> <br> On 10/22/2015 12:31 PM, Michal Fojtik wrote:<br> <br> That is good question :-)<br> <br> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Petr Pisar <<a>ppisar@redhat.com</a><br> <mailto:<a>ppisar@redhat.com</a>><br> <mailto:<a>ppisar@redhat.com</a> <mailto:<a>ppisar@redhat.com</a>>>> wrote:<br> <br> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:13:43PM +0200, Michal Fojtik wrote:<br> > I think one of the main reason (AFAIK) we used "-rhel7"<br> and "-centos7"<br> > suffixed for the images<br> > was that we simply used one repository ("openshift/") and<br> we needed to have<br> > a way to distinguish<br> > between rhel7 and centos7 images.<br> ><br> > Now, when we are pushing the images to "centos/"<br> namespace on DockerHub,<br> > this is not longer required<br> > I think, because "centos/ruby-22-centos7" sounds just<br> weird :-)<br> ><br> What will happen once centos8 is released? Do you think<br> then executing<br> centos8 image on centos7 or vice versa will be supported?<br> <br> -- Petr<br> <br> <br> <br> <br> _______________________________________________<br> SCLorg mailing list<br> <a>SCLorg@redhat.com</a> <mailto:<a>SCLorg@redhat.com</a>><br> <a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/sclorg" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/sclorg</a><br> <br> <br> </blockquote> </blockquote></div><br><br></div></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Daniel Riek <<a href="mailto:riek@redhat.com" target="_blank">riek@redhat.com</a>><div>* Sr. Director Systems Design & Engineering </div><div>* Red Hat Inc, Tel. <a href="tel:%2B1-617-863-6776" value="+16178636776" target="_blank">+1-617-863-6776</a></div></div></div></div><br> </font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Ben Parees | OpenShift<br><br></div></div> </div>