#docker-dev

we need to work out how to make images lightweight again

atm, we talk about my znc image/repo as being based on the debian base image

If I have "corp/division:app-name" how do I then build a package manager ontop of that that can do version dependency resolution

and somehow forget to stress that it means that my znc image is about 100k

because we feel weird about the 1% that have to also pull the debian base images (that are shared)

maybe "corp/division:app-name#version-spec"

boom

[docker] unclejack closed pull request #4931: Set bridge mac addr on supported kernels (master...gen-mac-addr-for-bridge) http://git.io/igy8Rg

ldlework, yeah, is versioning part of the name, or orthogolnal

SvenDowideit: Well its important that it is somewhere

login/corp/division/service:app#version ?

if by login you mean "registry holding the image this refers to"

user that pushed it

eh

i need to know who i blame

or who's work i'm trying out

that's synonymous to corp/division

as those are publishers on that registry

that's good enough, we don't care which internal person actually did the docker-push

[docker] vieux closed pull request #4902: Steve Wozniak is not boring. (master...wozniak_is_not_boring) http://git.io/iMGO7g

sven@docker/support/training:session2#latest :)

I don't thin we should remove the registry as part of the "URI schema"

when I'm pushing a proposed example so james can tell me i missed the point entirely

er, see git

Sure but you don't need all that

where yes, URI and user are in the config

must admit, i like aliases :/

[docker] creack pushed 2 new commits to master: http://git.io/rs5eXA

docker/master 9c0c4ae Tianon Gravi: Add basic initial "check-config" script to contrib...

docker/master 8ff02d5 Guillaume J. Charmes: Merge pull request #4963 from tianon/check-config...

I like how the actual label of the image specifies its distribution

except for the ones stackbrew makes - those are a secret :)

when I push on an image, the registry it is coupled to is actually a part of its name

yeah, it is much safer that way

I need to think more about images containing my companies super secret processes for making super-sauce

gh#3973

Add DOCKER_API_VERSION to set arbitrary version (ex: newer client on older server): https://github.com/dotcloud/docker/pull/3973

if i accidentally push that to the public index, I'm in deep

SvenDowideit: exactly. and it just so happens that the Docker ecosystem has a sensible default. Its just bad that, you can tell you're pushing a mistake, in that you DONT see the registry spec

so I guess that's bad, but the alternative is too verbose and annoying

to have to constantly "docker pull index.docker.io/library/ubuntu:latest"

FROM stackbrew/ubuntu was so much clearerer :)

i rarely docker pull a base image

SvenDowideit: sure, I agree we shouldn't have any implicit namespaces. It would make many parts of the SaaS implementation easier

But I think its fine to have a default registry

i don't think its a biggie :)

namespaces or default registry

i'm circling back to wanting to rename ``docker tag`` to ``docker name``, to coalesce containers and images and replace all uses of --tag with --name

that way ``docker inspect`` works as we want

the main pain will always be, what happens when I have local images with the same name / namespace as images i'm pulling from random places

tianon: i pushed a dockerfile for dockerci

oh, and solomon suggested that we can solve that by haveing your local un-namspaced images have a default namespace

SvenDowideit: That's why we should explain the schema of an image right from the get go

crosbymichael: you gem :D now I can play, thanks <3

at whichpoint I start seeing the trees

tianon: also see crosbymichael/nsqd

SvenDowideit: those "mycorp/myapp" names are really "index.docker.io/mycorp/myapp"

They are not local

yeah

but if i do

The whole point of what I was saying is that there is *always* an associated registry

``docker build -t something .``

[docker] crosbymichael closed pull request #3973: Add DOCKER_API_VERSION to set arbitrary version (ex: newer client on older server) (master...retrocompatible_client) http://git.io/_eP6pA

that is local

SvenDowideit: nope

crosbymichael: much shiny <3

it is atm, as its in the default '' namespace

but you can't push it

because almost no-one has that authorisation

SvenDowideit: yes, that's a bug, imo.

y, and solomon pointed out that was an easy solve :)

It might make sense to parse the provided tag and if it doesn't provide a namespace, to use the currently logged in Docker user, and if there is none, to raise an error.