Roman, Thanks for bringing this to the ML. Ubuntu images should have the distro in its image name
so it is clear and avoid any confusion when we start have suse, centos images etc.
+1 to this. It also drives consistency. Creation of another image repository is a one time effort;
usage of separate image repositories for different base images is a recommendation from Quay.io tech.support; usage of separate image repositories for different base images allows to easily distinguish between images when trying to `docker pull ...` image without specifying a tag (assuming :latest)
If we create an additional repository, could it make multi-OS integration in scripts and tooling (e.g. Airskiff) more difficult? For example, if using the same image repository, you would just have to substitute ${DISTRO} when pulling docker images; however, if using an additional repository, the repository name must be substituted as well. The former seems like a cleaner approach. would we use ``airshipit/<airship component>-<distributive
flavour>[-<version>]:<git tag>`` or ``airshipit/<airship component>:<distributive flavour>[-<version>]-<git tag>``?
``airshipit/<airship component>-<distributive flavour>[-<version>]:<git tag>`` is more readable to me, and I think it's what is used in OSH-images. Best, Drew Walters (dwalt)