spec: Remove DNS-naming and signing entries from high-level components #643
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Contributor
|
LGTM However, I thought this was part of a road map thing. Do we have it represented anywhere? |
Contributor
Author
#11, #22, and https://www.opencontainers.org/about/oci-scope-table |
Member
|
@wking conflict, needs a rebase :) |
Contributor
|
I don't feel extremely strongly about this, but why not just add a note saying "work has not yet started"? |
Member
|
we had roadmapped these. It's more of a "work has not yet started" like @jonboulle said |
wking
force-pushed
the
no-dns-naming-or-signing-yet
branch
from
15c38f9 to
8eef994
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 05:08:59AM -0700, v1.0.0.batts wrote:
we had roadmapped these. It's more of a "work has not yet started"
like @jonboulle said
Right, and I think we should remove them from the spec as long as they
are roadmap-only. For example, the README currently links to
milestones for roadmap information [1], although in this case tags are
probably more appropriate [2,3]. I'm fine adding links to those
labels (or just link to [4]?) in an out-of-spec location (like the the
README), but I don't think we need or want to track roadmap
information in the spec itself.
Rebased around #641 with 15c38f9 → 8eef994.
[1]: https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/blob/v1.0.0-rc5/README.md#roadmap
[2]: https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/labels/component%2Fnaming%20spec
[3]: https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/labels/component%2Fsigning%20spec
[4]: https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/labels
|
Contributor
|
+1 to work has not started language. |
Contributor
Author
|
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:42:59AM -0700, Brandon Philips wrote:
+1 to work has not started language.
Is that “and I require the not-started language to be in spec.md and
not in the ‘Roadmap’ README section [1]”? Or are you ok with me
removing the entries from spec.md if I add not-started language to
that README section?
[1]: https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/blob/v1.0.0-rc5/README.md#roadmap
|
Contributor
|
Since the roadmap to 1.0 doesn't reference these, please just add work-not-yet-started here in this list. |
We don't have these yet. I'd rather remove them, because: * We already track roadmap issues in the README [1] (which is not part of the spec itself). * We also have issue-labels for these features [2,3]. * We have entries in the scope table for these features [4]. * We can recover the current wording from version control if/when we land spec sections to back them. But at least three maintainers are in favor of keeping a note of some sort [5,6,7], and the only direct response to my desire to move the references to the existing roadmap section was: On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 04:09:32AM -0700, Jonathan Boulle wrote [8]: > Since the roadmap to 1.0 doesn't reference these, please just add > work-not-yet-started here in this list. I still don't see why that section needs to be 1.0-specific, especially since the only accurate part of the current roadmap body is the link to milestones which are not 1.0-specific. But I've already made the arguments I can think of, and for whatever reason the maintainers aren't convinced. [1]: https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/blob/v1.0.0-rc5/README.md#roadmap [2]: https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/labels/component%2Fnaming%20spec [3]: https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/labels/component%2Fsigning%20spec [4]: https://www.opencontainers.org/about/oci-scope-table [5]: opencontainers#643 (comment) [6]: opencontainers#643 (comment) [7]: opencontainers#643 (comment) [8]: opencontainers#643 (comment) Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
wking
force-pushed
the
no-dns-naming-or-signing-yet
branch
from
8eef994 to
d67c709
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 04:09:32AM -0700, Jonathan Boulle wrote:
Since the roadmap to 1.0 doesn't reference these, please just add
work-not-yet-started here in this list.
I see no reason for that README section to be 1.0-specific, especially
since the only accurate part of the current roadmap body is the link
to milestones (which is not 1.0-specific). But whatever, it seems
like the maintainers really want to keep these two particular roadmap
entries in the spec itself, so in 8eef994 → d67c709 I've restored them
with a “we may get to these at some point” caveat.
|
Member
|
LGTM |
Member
|
review please |
wking
commented
May 19, 2017
| * Signatures that are based on signing image content address (optional OCI layer) | ||
| * Naming that is federated based on DNS and can be delegated (optional OCI layer) | ||
|
|
||
| Future versions of this specification may include the following OPTIONAL features: |
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@RobDolinMS might be concerned about this lowercase “may” (e.g. #109, #110, #245). Do folks have other ideas for rephrasing this sentence to avoid “may”? I don't want to use MAY, because this is about the spec roadmap, not about conformance with this spec version. Perhaps:
The following OPTIONAL features are under consideration for future versions of this specification:
?
Contributor
|
lgtm |
jonboulle
pushed a commit
to jonboulle/image-spec
that referenced
this pull request
May 22, 2017
We don't have these yet. I'd rather remove them, because: * We already track roadmap issues in the README [1] (which is not part of the spec itself). * We also have issue-labels for these features [2,3]. * We have entries in the scope table for these features [4]. * We can recover the current wording from version control if/when we land spec sections to back them. But at least three maintainers are in favor of keeping a note of some sort [5,6,7], and the only direct response to my desire to move the references to the existing roadmap section was: On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 04:09:32AM -0700, Jonathan Boulle wrote [8]: > Since the roadmap to 1.0 doesn't reference these, please just add > work-not-yet-started here in this list. I still don't see why that section needs to be 1.0-specific, especially since the only accurate part of the current roadmap body is the link to milestones which are not 1.0-specific. But I've already made the arguments I can think of, and for whatever reason the maintainers aren't convinced. [1]: https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/blob/v1.0.0-rc5/README.md#roadmap [2]: https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/labels/component%2Fnaming%20spec [3]: https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/labels/component%2Fsigning%20spec [4]: https://www.opencontainers.org/about/oci-scope-table [5]: opencontainers#643 (comment) [6]: opencontainers#643 (comment) [7]: opencontainers#643 (comment) [8]: opencontainers#643 (comment) Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
dattgoswami9lk5g
added a commit
to dattgoswami9lk5g/bremlinr
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 6, 2022
We don't have these yet. I'd rather remove them, because: * We already track roadmap issues in the README [1] (which is not part of the spec itself). * We also have issue-labels for these features [2,3]. * We have entries in the scope table for these features [4]. * We can recover the current wording from version control if/when we land spec sections to back them. But at least three maintainers are in favor of keeping a note of some sort [5,6,7], and the only direct response to my desire to move the references to the existing roadmap section was: On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 04:09:32AM -0700, Jonathan Boulle wrote [8]: > Since the roadmap to 1.0 doesn't reference these, please just add > work-not-yet-started here in this list. I still don't see why that section needs to be 1.0-specific, especially since the only accurate part of the current roadmap body is the link to milestones which are not 1.0-specific. But I've already made the arguments I can think of, and for whatever reason the maintainers aren't convinced. [1]: https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/blob/v1.0.0-rc5/README.md#roadmap [2]: https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/labels/component%2Fnaming%20spec [3]: https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/labels/component%2Fsigning%20spec [4]: https://www.opencontainers.org/about/oci-scope-table [5]: opencontainers/image-spec#643 (comment) [6]: opencontainers/image-spec#643 (comment) [7]: opencontainers/image-spec#643 (comment) [8]: opencontainers/image-spec#643 (comment) Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
7c00d
pushed a commit
to 7c00d/J1nHyeockKim
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 6, 2022
We don't have these yet. I'd rather remove them, because: * We already track roadmap issues in the README [1] (which is not part of the spec itself). * We also have issue-labels for these features [2,3]. * We have entries in the scope table for these features [4]. * We can recover the current wording from version control if/when we land spec sections to back them. But at least three maintainers are in favor of keeping a note of some sort [5,6,7], and the only direct response to my desire to move the references to the existing roadmap section was: On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 04:09:32AM -0700, Jonathan Boulle wrote [8]: > Since the roadmap to 1.0 doesn't reference these, please just add > work-not-yet-started here in this list. I still don't see why that section needs to be 1.0-specific, especially since the only accurate part of the current roadmap body is the link to milestones which are not 1.0-specific. But I've already made the arguments I can think of, and for whatever reason the maintainers aren't convinced. [1]: https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/blob/v1.0.0-rc5/README.md#roadmap [2]: https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/labels/component%2Fnaming%20spec [3]: https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/labels/component%2Fsigning%20spec [4]: https://www.opencontainers.org/about/oci-scope-table [5]: opencontainers/image-spec#643 (comment) [6]: opencontainers/image-spec#643 (comment) [7]: opencontainers/image-spec#643 (comment) [8]: opencontainers/image-spec#643 (comment) Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
7c00d
added a commit
to 7c00d/J1nHyeockKim
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 6, 2022
We don't have these yet. I'd rather remove them, because: * We already track roadmap issues in the README [1] (which is not part of the spec itself). * We also have issue-labels for these features [2,3]. * We have entries in the scope table for these features [4]. * We can recover the current wording from version control if/when we land spec sections to back them. But at least three maintainers are in favor of keeping a note of some sort [5,6,7], and the only direct response to my desire to move the references to the existing roadmap section was: On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 04:09:32AM -0700, Jonathan Boulle wrote [8]: > Since the roadmap to 1.0 doesn't reference these, please just add > work-not-yet-started here in this list. I still don't see why that section needs to be 1.0-specific, especially since the only accurate part of the current roadmap body is the link to milestones which are not 1.0-specific. But I've already made the arguments I can think of, and for whatever reason the maintainers aren't convinced. [1]: https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/blob/v1.0.0-rc5/README.md#roadmap [2]: https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/labels/component%2Fnaming%20spec [3]: https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/labels/component%2Fsigning%20spec [4]: https://www.opencontainers.org/about/oci-scope-table [5]: opencontainers/image-spec#643 (comment) [6]: opencontainers/image-spec#643 (comment) [7]: opencontainers/image-spec#643 (comment) [8]: opencontainers/image-spec#643 (comment) Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
laventuraw
added a commit
to laventuraw/Kihara-tony0
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 6, 2022
We don't have these yet. I'd rather remove them, because: * We already track roadmap issues in the README [1] (which is not part of the spec itself). * We also have issue-labels for these features [2,3]. * We have entries in the scope table for these features [4]. * We can recover the current wording from version control if/when we land spec sections to back them. But at least three maintainers are in favor of keeping a note of some sort [5,6,7], and the only direct response to my desire to move the references to the existing roadmap section was: On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 04:09:32AM -0700, Jonathan Boulle wrote [8]: > Since the roadmap to 1.0 doesn't reference these, please just add > work-not-yet-started here in this list. I still don't see why that section needs to be 1.0-specific, especially since the only accurate part of the current roadmap body is the link to milestones which are not 1.0-specific. But I've already made the arguments I can think of, and for whatever reason the maintainers aren't convinced. [1]: https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/blob/v1.0.0-rc5/README.md#roadmap [2]: https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/labels/component%2Fnaming%20spec [3]: https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/labels/component%2Fsigning%20spec [4]: https://www.opencontainers.org/about/oci-scope-table [5]: opencontainers/image-spec#643 (comment) [6]: opencontainers/image-spec#643 (comment) [7]: opencontainers/image-spec#643 (comment) [8]: opencontainers/image-spec#643 (comment) Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
tomalopbsr0tt
added a commit
to tomalopbsr0tt/fabiojosej
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 6, 2022
We don't have these yet. I'd rather remove them, because: * We already track roadmap issues in the README [1] (which is not part of the spec itself). * We also have issue-labels for these features [2,3]. * We have entries in the scope table for these features [4]. * We can recover the current wording from version control if/when we land spec sections to back them. But at least three maintainers are in favor of keeping a note of some sort [5,6,7], and the only direct response to my desire to move the references to the existing roadmap section was: On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 04:09:32AM -0700, Jonathan Boulle wrote [8]: > Since the roadmap to 1.0 doesn't reference these, please just add > work-not-yet-started here in this list. I still don't see why that section needs to be 1.0-specific, especially since the only accurate part of the current roadmap body is the link to milestones which are not 1.0-specific. But I've already made the arguments I can think of, and for whatever reason the maintainers aren't convinced. [1]: https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/blob/v1.0.0-rc5/README.md#roadmap [2]: https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/labels/component%2Fnaming%20spec [3]: https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/labels/component%2Fsigning%20spec [4]: https://www.opencontainers.org/about/oci-scope-table [5]: opencontainers/image-spec#643 (comment) [6]: opencontainers/image-spec#643 (comment) [7]: opencontainers/image-spec#643 (comment) [8]: opencontainers/image-spec#643 (comment) Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
6 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
We don't have these yet, and can restore the entries if/when we land spec sections describing them.