On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:27:27 -0500 Adam Miller maxamillion@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 17:28:43 -0400 Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 11:32:39AM -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
Yeah, I think what we need is a "Fedora Docker" product. ie, at this level: Is "Fedora Docker" the right name for the product?
I'm honestly not sure, I'd like to get mattdm and/or the Council to chime in on that. I'm definitely not the right person for selecting the color of the bike shed.
I was first thinking "Fedora Docker Layered Images" — it's longish but accurately descriptive. But then I thought: actually, we don't have a clear bug-reporting home for _base_ images (other than pagure for the fedora-kickstarts). So, if it isn't too ugly to overload the namespace just a little bit, we could just do "Fedora Docker Images".
What do you all think?
Sure, works for me.
Where do we need to submit the request for the new component to be created in BZ?
Just an infrastructure ticket.
But we should also file the a pkgdb issue to update the bugzilla sync script for components in that namespace.
kevin