ArtifactHub.io Integration #323
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Maintainers, As you review this RFC please queue up issues to be created using the following commands: Issues(none) |
Signed-off-by: Joey Brown <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Joey Brown <[email protected]>
joeybrown-sf
force-pushed
the
artifact-hub
branch
from
d2683a2 to
512ee84
Compare
Signed-off-by: Joey Brown <[email protected]>
jkutner
added
roadmap/registry
status/steward-assigned
and removed
status/needs-steward
labels
jkutner
reviewed
Jan 30, 2025
|
|
||
| ### [ArtifactHub.io](https://artifacthub.io/) | ||
|
|
||
| An instance of the ArtifactHub project that is hosted with CNFC resources and maintained by ArtifactHub project |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| An instance of the ArtifactHub project that is hosted with CNFC resources and maintained by ArtifactHub project | |
| An instance of the ArtifactHub project that is hosted with CNCF resources and maintained by ArtifactHub project |
jkutner
reviewed
Jan 30, 2025
| Artifact Hub artifact schemas and API could drift from the official RFC speec and implementation. We would need to | ||
| consider backwards compatibility with the ArtifactHub implementation. | ||
|
|
||
| # Alternatives |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Another alternative: we could also sunset our registry move to ArtifactHub entirely
jkutner
reviewed
Jan 30, 2025
|
|
||
| [unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions | ||
|
|
||
| Is there a Buildpacks team that owns the Registry Service now? Are they willing to take on the burden of owning this? If |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yea, it's owned by Platform Team
jkutner
reviewed
Jan 30, 2025
|
|
||
| [drawbacks]: #drawbacks | ||
|
|
||
| We would need to consider changes to the ArtifactHub type schemas when modifying our spec. It is possible that the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hmm, are you sure we need to include them? or could they just be a supplement. or at least a spec extension?
what does this schema look like?
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
readable