serialization: Require 'layers' for rootfs.type #277
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
I'd rather drop the field [1], but have been unable to convince Stephen that there would not be side effects of that approach. So we're back to my initial recommendation that we require the 'layers' value [2] and require implementations to error out if they see an unknown value [3]. The use of "unknown" vs. "another" allows image and implementation authors to collaborate on additional layer types if they see a need to do so while ensuring that users not party to such extensions don't get silently-broken behavior. This relies on extention types being suitably namespaced/unique so that two separate extension groups don't pick the same type string, but that seems like a reasonably safe bet. The spec does not provide any way to version this field, so users wondering "is my tooling modern enough to handle this image and any rootfs.type extensions it may contain?" should ask their tooling to validate the image. [1]: opencontainers#224 Subject: serialization: Drop rootfs.type (which had only one legal value) [2]: opencontainers#211 (comment) Subject: serialization: remove windows-specific layers+base rootfs [3]: opencontainers#211 (comment) Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <[email protected]>
wking
force-pushed
the
solidify-serialization-rootfs-type
branch
from
d82c688 to
1948a30
Compare
Contributor
|
LGTM |
1 similar comment
Contributor
|
LGTM |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I'd rather drop the field (#224), but have been unable to convince @stevvooe that there would not be side effects of that approach. So we're back to my initial recommendation that we require the
layersvalue and require implementations to error out if they see an unknown value.The use of “unknown” vs. “another” allows image and implementation authors to collaborate on additional layer types if they see a need to do so while ensuring that users not party to such extensions don't get silently-broken behavior. This relies on extention types being suitably namespaced/unique so that two separate extension groups don't pick the same type string, but that seems like a reasonably safe bet.
The spec does not provide any way to version this field, so users wondering “is my tooling modern enough to handle this image and any
rootfs.typeextensions it may contain?” should ask their tooling to validate the image.