Skip to content

Conversation

@vbatts
Copy link
Member

@vbatts vbatts commented Oct 28, 2016

Signed-off-by: Vincent Batts [email protected]

image-layout.md Outdated
In the wild you often see "tags" like "v1.0.0-vendor.0", "2.0.0-debug", etc.
Those tags will often be represented in an image-layout repository with matching refs names like "v1.0.0-vendor.0", "2.0.0-debug", etc.

This illustrates the expected contents of a given ref, the manifest list it points to and the blobs the manifest references.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

could you move this below Example Ref

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done

@vbatts vbatts force-pushed the image-layout_anchors branch from 7fbd96b to fd3ba33 Compare October 28, 2016 19:41
{"size": 4096, "digest": "sha256:e692418e4cbaf90ca69d05a66403747baa33ee08806650b51fab815ad7fc331f", "mediatype": "application/vnd.oci.image.manifest.list.v1+json"}
```

This illustrates the expected contents of a given ref, the manifest list it points to and the blobs the manifest references.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looking at this line more closely after it was shifted, what is it actually saying? “contents of a given ref” sounds like “a descriptor”, so ok. “the manifest list it points to” might be the descriptor again. But how is this illustrating “thte blobs the manifest references”? Maybe we should drop this line entirely.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks like the “blobs the manifest references” wording came in with 2f24791, #136. I think we either want to revert the changes 2f24791 made to this line or drop the line. CC @runcom.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Separate concern from this PR

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Spun off into #427.

@jonboulle
Copy link
Contributor

jonboulle commented Nov 2, 2016

lgtm

Approved with PullApprove

@vbatts
Copy link
Member Author

vbatts commented Nov 3, 2016

@opencontainers/image-spec-maintainers PTAL

@philips
Copy link
Contributor

philips commented Nov 16, 2016

LGTM

Approved with PullApprove

@jonboulle
Copy link
Contributor

sorry, rebase time

@vbatts vbatts force-pushed the image-layout_anchors branch from fd3ba33 to 73e8dc6 Compare November 21, 2016 18:44
@vbatts
Copy link
Member Author

vbatts commented Nov 21, 2016

updated. PTAL

@stevvooe
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM

@jonboulle
Copy link
Contributor

jonboulle commented Nov 24, 2016

lgtm

Approved with PullApprove

@vbatts
Copy link
Member Author

vbatts commented Nov 30, 2016

interesting. @stevvooe's LGTM didn't work? @caniszczyk ?

@stevvooe
Copy link
Contributor

stevvooe commented Dec 7, 2016

LGTM

Approved with PullApprove

@stevvooe
Copy link
Contributor

stevvooe commented Dec 7, 2016

@vbatts Rebase!

@vbatts vbatts force-pushed the image-layout_anchors branch from 73e8dc6 to bbbaa25 Compare December 9, 2016 14:13
@vbatts
Copy link
Member Author

vbatts commented Dec 9, 2016

rebased!

@jonboulle
Copy link
Contributor

jonboulle commented Dec 9, 2016

lgtm

Approved with PullApprove

@stevvooe
Copy link
Contributor

stevvooe commented Dec 20, 2016

LGTM

Approved with PullApprove

@stevvooe stevvooe merged commit e1694db into opencontainers:master Dec 20, 2016
@vbatts vbatts deleted the image-layout_anchors branch February 8, 2017 14:59
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants