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!

Comment on lines +76 to +79
_Uniqueness requirement_: whenever there are two images that have `os_hidden=False`, `visibility=public`,
and that coincide in all three fields `os_distro`, `os_version`, and `architecture`, then only one of them may
have `os_purpose=generic`. In other words, users who search visible public images for a generic OS
of a certain distro, version, and architecture will not get more than one result.
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Note to self: check whether we have a testcase for that (I guess not)

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

As we should have a testcase for that before merge, I changed the PR to draft for now.

@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
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from Backlog to Done in Sovereign Cloud Stack Mar 4, 2026
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