Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Discussion: Defining annotations in the registry specification #382

Open
radu-matei opened this issue Jul 7, 2020 · 2 comments
Open

Discussion: Defining annotations in the registry specification #382

radu-matei opened this issue Jul 7, 2020 · 2 comments

Comments

@radu-matei
Copy link
Member

@carolynvs's original comment:

Should the spec define how to populate or use the annotations?

@chris-crone
Copy link
Contributor

We expect CNABs to be stored in several different formats: (1) OCI with correct media type, (2) OCI with image media types, and (3) Docker manifest list with image media types. Given that, I think that guidance on annotations would be useful as it allows registry owners and tool builders to give users more information more easily.

That being said, Docker manifest lists don't have annotations in the spec. So if we'd like to be prescriptive, we will need to do so only on the bundle's manifest.

WDYT?

@SteveLasker
Copy link

Please don't ask registry operators to special-case CNABs, just as we don't ask file-systems to special-case certain extensions.
Consolidating on a single mediaType that defines a CNAB, will make CNABs more consumable. If registries have to guess, or add logic for what mediaType is used in certain situations, it will only complicate its usage.
Annotations are great for search information, but not good for declaring a thing. Here are some thoughts that might help: OCI Artifact Authoring: Annotations & Config.json

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants