Skip to content

Conversation

@runcom
Copy link
Member

@runcom runcom commented Dec 1, 2016

When containers/image#148 is merged - we'll load images on the test registries when the test suites come up.

@mtrmac PTAL

Signed-off-by: Antonio Murdaca [email protected]

@runcom runcom force-pushed the do-not-pull-from-hub-take-2 branch from 85d1255 to f13e5ce Compare December 1, 2016 10:07
@@ -0,0 +1,121 @@
#!/bin/bash
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we'll likely remove this as well once we have docker-archive transport and directly use skopeo probably

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We've now had docker-archive for a while, so we can drop this. 😉

@mtrmac
Copy link
Contributor

mtrmac commented Dec 1, 2016

This doesn’t actually remove any Hub references from the tests yet, does it?

@runcom
Copy link
Member Author

runcom commented Dec 1, 2016

This doesn’t actually remove any Hub references from the tests yet, does it?

not yet, waiting on the docker-archive functionality at least

@mtrmac
Copy link
Contributor

mtrmac commented Dec 1, 2016

If I understand correctly, the idea is to use that shell script → docker-archive:docker loaddocker push to recreate the needed images in our registry; is that right?

If so, why not just do docker pull && docker push, perhaps both in the Dockerfile?

@runcom
Copy link
Member Author

runcom commented Dec 1, 2016

@mtrmac we don't have docker in the docker container - and I wouldn't have it also.
The idea is to download the images in the Dockerfile, and at test suite setup skopeo copy ... from tarballs directly:

skopeo copy docker-archive:/localimage.tar docker://testregistry.com:5000/busybox:latest

@mtrmac
Copy link
Contributor

mtrmac commented Dec 1, 2016

Oops, that was stupid of me.

In that case, we could also use dir: instead of docker-archive:, that involves fewer manifest conversions. OTOH the conversions, both in the new script and in docker-archive:, are already implemented, so reworking the script to use the dir: format would be quite unnecessary work.

@runcom runcom changed the title integration: do not pull from Docker Hub [wip] integration: do not pull from Docker Hub Dec 1, 2016
@cyphar
Copy link
Contributor

cyphar commented Feb 16, 2017

👍 However we have to make sure that that docker:// source is properly tested with the live Docker Hub. Maybe make it a separate suite or something -- but we still need to verify that the upstream Docker Hub still works with us.

@runcom
Copy link
Member Author

runcom commented Feb 16, 2017

However we have to make sure that that docker:// source is properly tested with the live Docker Hub. Maybe make it a separate suite or something -- but we still need to verify that the upstream Docker Hub still works with us.

of course, yes

@rhatdan
Copy link
Member

rhatdan commented Aug 14, 2017

Is this pull request still something we are considering?

@rhatdan
Copy link
Member

rhatdan commented Mar 8, 2018

@runcom Either update this or close it.

@rhatdan rhatdan closed this Mar 12, 2018
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 8, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants