►
From YouTube: OCI Weekly Discussion - 2023-07-20
A
C
C
C
A
C
D
C
C
The
direction
I
was
going
was
implementations
plus
two
weeks
and
then
I
think
the
six
weeks
was
just
saying
abroad
get
a
fixed
number
out
there.
Somewhere.
I
have
heard
people
on
some
of
the
request
for
feedback
that
I
sent
out
I.
Think
at
least
one
said:
hey,
I'm
busy
right
now,
but
I'll
try
to
get
it
back
to
you,
and
they
quote
the
six
week
time
on
so
they're
kind
of
expecting
to
have
that
long
to
give
feedback
to
which
I'm
kind
of
I
didn't
say
it.
But
I
was
thinking
it
of
well.
E
E
C
B
C
E
B
C
A
B
B
A
C
B
C
And
and
to
your
point,
I
think:
a
lot
of
that
is
not
version
specific
and
that's
right,
I
think
a
lot
of
the
discussions
going
back
and
forth
on
the
artifacts
had
said:
hey,
we
need
a
1.1
release
over
here
and
I
was
always
thinking.
Well,
there
isn't
a
1.0
release
of
the
artifactory
pro
intentionally
because
it
was
always
designed
to
be
more
of
a
living
thing.
B
C
B
C
Me
try
to
rephrase
a
little
bit
if
I
am
creating
an
artifact
I
shouldn't
care.
If
the
person
receiving
it
has
image
spec,
1.1
or
1.0,
because
if
they
are
1.1,
maybe
they've
got
a
few
extra
fields
in
there,
but
if,
if
they
didn't
have
those
fields
to
start
with,
what
are
they
really
trying
to
read
and
load
in
here?
What
are
they
doing
with
the
artifact
that
they're
trying
to
receive
it,
and
it
would
be
things.
B
C
Yeah
the
direction
I'm
going
is
if
I
produce
the
artifact
of
1.1
and
I
use
the
artifact
type
field,
because
I
couldn't
put
it
in
the
configure
type
and
someone
else
has
a
tool
that
copies
images
and
they
only
know
about
the
1.0
spec.
It
still
works,
there's
no
changes
on
their
side
they
need
to.
So
this
is
fully
Backward
Compatible
at
that
point
that
you
can
copy
these
things
around
because
content
address,
will
you
never
change
what
you
copy
you
just
take
it
verbatim
that.
C
B
B
B
Was
more
along
the
lines
of
the
kinds
of
guidance
that
you
would
want
to
put
there
as
I'm?
Looking
at
what
we
have
today
and
and
not
just
already
in
artifacts,
we
had
a
couple
of
PRS
that
never
got
merged
and
there's
some
external
links
to
the
work
group.
You
know
stuff
and
also
you
know
some
third-party
implementations
in
existence
to
consider.
C
My
thought
process
is
along
the
lines
of
if
you
have
something
that
needs
the
1.1
image
manifest
to
ship
your
artifact.
It's
probably
on
both
ends.
The
sender
and
the
receiver
are
both
looking
for
that
New
Media
type,
because
you
need
it
for
whatever
you're
doing,
and
so
any
intermediate
tooling
shouldn't
break
it,
because
it's
content,
addressable
they're,
not
changing
it
and
the
endpoints
both
work
with
it
effectively
and
they're
not
affected
by
this
oci
version
in
between.