Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF position on new Docker policy limiting image retention
|
Brendan Burns
In general, CNCF hasn't paid for infrastructure, so I think if we were going to do something like that, we should talk about it generally.
However, in this case, as was noted, I think the effect is minimal to non-existent, since by definition any image that hasn't been pulled in 6 months is pretty low-impact.
From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Frederick Kautz via lists.cncf.io <frederick=kautz.dev@...>
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 10:01 AM To: saiyam pathak <Saiyam911@...> Cc: Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>; Yuri Shkuro <shkuro@...>; CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF position on new Docker policy limiting image retention Adding to this, sccording to the faq, inactive images are defined as images that have not been pulled or pushed in at least 6 months.
This could still break things, but shouldn't be too disruptive for active projects. However, old images which should probably be retained/archived could disappear.
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 9:28 AM saiyam pathak <Saiyam911@...> wrote:
|
|
|