incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Communicating intent around non-release, downstream integration binary artifacts
Date Wed, 24 Jun 2015 03:18:50 GMT
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Sean Busbey <> wrote:
> While I agree that this is a general issue that should be discussed, an
> example might help. This discussion started because the Geode PMC is
> publishing a docker artifact from their nightly builds and then pointing
> the general public to make use of that image. They have no released
> artifacts, so any downstream user necessarily will be using those
> non-vetted artifacts.

Once releases are made, then I think any Geode documentation would
definitely shift to referring to the released versions.  However,
Geode isn't yet ready to cut a release.

I do doubt that anyone who picks up a nightly Geode build right now is
going to put it into production.  So, I'm not overly worried.

By the time the project is ready to graduate, there will be several
releases (if not more) and I fully expect that this'll be a moot

> Downstream developers and users *will* take the path of lease resistance.
> If that PMC wanted to continue relying on a binary docker image for
> community outreach indefinitely, would that be okay? If they wanted to rely
> on it and only have PMC blessed releases quarterly?

As I mentioned in my other email, as long as it's automated and
producing a nightly artifact that is appropriately labeled, then, sure
go for it, IMO.

Cheers.  -- justin

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message