On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:27:27 -0500 Adam Miller <maxamillion@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 17:28:43 -0400 > > Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
Attachment:
pgpbNtXwux5sR.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
