Skip to content

Add Standards/scs-0102-v2-image-metadata.md#988

Merged
mbuechse merged 2 commits intomainfrom
feat/scs-0102-v2
Mar 4, 2026
Merged

Add Standards/scs-0102-v2-image-metadata.md#988
mbuechse merged 2 commits intomainfrom
feat/scs-0102-v2

Conversation

@mbuechse
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@mbuechse mbuechse self-assigned this Sep 16, 2025
@mbuechse mbuechse marked this pull request as draft September 16, 2025 10:11
@fzakfeld
Copy link
Contributor

@depressiveRobot we (ScaleUp) have implemented this and should be ready

@depressiveRobot
Copy link
Contributor

We have two further responses:

  • one can implement it by mid-February 2026
  • one is against mandatory as they see no customer demand for it

@mbuechse mbuechse marked this pull request as ready for review December 3, 2025 10:30
Copy link
Contributor

@depressiveRobot depressiveRobot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think the replaces metadata field to the old document needs to be added.

Copy link
Contributor

@depressiveRobot depressiveRobot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for adding the missing field. Looks good now.

Copy link
Member

@garloff garloff left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good to me, thanks!

@depressiveRobot depressiveRobot self-requested a review January 26, 2026 11:12
@depressiveRobot depressiveRobot marked this pull request as draft January 26, 2026 11:16
@mbuechse
Copy link
Contributor Author

note to self: add testcase scs-0102-os_purpose-uniqueness

@garloff
Copy link
Member

garloff commented Feb 6, 2026

We have two further responses:

* one can implement it by mid-February 2026

* one is against mandatory as they see no customer demand for it

Well, the os_purpose field is the price to be paid for the freedom to have different image names.
So I would ask that operator whether they prefer the fixed image names.
The other thing to know is that there is no world in which this change -- adding another metadata field os_purpose -- would be in any way tedious or risky to break anything. Is is a no-brainer and just a question of whether you are willing to have some SCS best-practise metadata fields on all public images or not.

@mbuechse
Copy link
Contributor Author

mbuechse commented Feb 6, 2026

@garloff I think we know the arguments. I propose you talk to the operators directly. There is a decent chance this will be possible duing the workshop on February 24th.

mbuechse added 2 commits March 4, 2026 12:31
Signed-off-by: Matthias Büchse <matthias.buechse@alasca.cloud>
Signed-off-by: Matthias Büchse <matthias.buechse@alasca.cloud>
@fkr fkr force-pushed the feat/scs-0102-v2 branch from 1bc4873 to 768628d Compare March 4, 2026 11:31
@fkr
Copy link
Member

fkr commented Mar 4, 2026

We have two further responses:

  • one can implement it by mid-February 2026
  • one is against mandatory as they see no customer demand for it

Mid-February has passed. Others have not commented.

@fkr
Copy link
Member

fkr commented Mar 4, 2026

note to self: add testcase scs-0102-os_purpose-uniqueness

for clarification: are you going to add the testcase or is this something where someone else should deliver one?

@mbuechse
Copy link
Contributor Author

mbuechse commented Mar 4, 2026

@fkr Sure, I can do it. I would merge this first, though. We can't stabilize without complete tests, but we can always merge a draft.

@mbuechse mbuechse marked this pull request as ready for review March 4, 2026 11:41
@mbuechse mbuechse merged commit 3bd7e2f into main Mar 4, 2026
10 checks passed
@mbuechse mbuechse deleted the feat/scs-0102-v2 branch March 4, 2026 11:41
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

Status: Done

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants