You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The primary goal is so that tools wishing to leverage OCI for arbitrary artifact distribution have an opinionated framework for doing so.
The secondary goal is to continue to garner support and prove out the ORAS method of doing things, and potentially/eventually/hopefully making this a part of OCI proper.
A non-goal of the spec is to fragment the OCI ecosystem. It is not meant to divide, but to further enable and embolden orgs that wish to achieve multi-artifact support today. If you are reading this as a registry provider - your thoughts here are appreciated (even if it is that of indifference).
Thanks @jdolitsky for pushing on this.
I'm hopeful we can get some traction with the OCI working group, as your non-goal is a real concern. Lets see if we can get some quorum in this weeks meeting. @jzelinskie, it would be helpful if you can attend the call and speak to your feedback on the pr: opencontainers/distribution-spec#65
I suggest that:
The ORAS Specification should be a superset of the OCI Distribution Specification.
The primary goal is so that tools wishing to leverage OCI for arbitrary artifact distribution have an opinionated framework for doing so.
The secondary goal is to continue to garner support and prove out the ORAS method of doing things, and potentially/eventually/hopefully making this a part of OCI proper.
A non-goal of the spec is to fragment the OCI ecosystem. It is not meant to divide, but to further enable and embolden orgs that wish to achieve multi-artifact support today. If you are reading this as a registry provider - your thoughts here are appreciated (even if it is that of indifference).
cc: @SteveLasker @sajayantony @glyn @jzelinskie @bacongobbler @lachie83
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: