On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:27:27 -0500
Adam Miller <maxamillion(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com>
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 17:28:43 -0400
> Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 11:32:39AM -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
>> > > Yeah, I think what we need is a "Fedora Docker" product.
>> > > ie, at this level:
>> > > Is "Fedora Docker" the right name for the product?
>> > I'm honestly not sure, I'd like to get mattdm and/or the Council
>> > to chime in on that. I'm definitely not the right person for
>> > selecting the color of the bike shed.
>> I was first thinking "Fedora Docker Layered Images" — it's
>> but accurately descriptive. But then I thought: actually, we don't
>> have a clear bug-reporting home for _base_ images (other than
>> pagure for the fedora-kickstarts). So, if it isn't too ugly to
>> overload the namespace just a little bit, we could just do "Fedora
>> Docker Images".
>> What do you all think?
> Sure, works for me.
Where do we need to submit the request for the new component to be
created in BZ?
Just an infrastructure ticket.
But we should also file the a pkgdb issue to update the bugzilla sync
script for components in that namespace.