Kubewarden Artifact Hub Official Status Discussion
Hey everyone! Let's dive into the discussion around the official status for the kubewarden/annotations-policy/annotations repository on Artifact Hub. This is a pretty important topic, guys, because it helps users quickly identify packages that are truly owned and maintained by the original software creators.
Understanding the official Status on Artifact Hub
So, what does it really mean to be official on Artifact Hub? Well, think of it this way: the official status signifies that the publisher owns the software the package is built around. To make this crystal clear, let's consider some examples. Imagine a chart designed to install Consul. To snag that official badge, the publisher must be HashiCorp – the folks who actually created Consul. It wouldn't make sense for just anyone who made a chart for Consul to claim that status, right? Similarly, if we're talking about a Tekton task for Google Cloud operations, the only publisher that could rightfully claim official status is Google itself. And, of course, an official MySQL operator can only come from MySQL/Oracle. It’s all about ensuring that users are getting their packages from the source they trust.
The official status isn’t just handed out willy-nilly; it carries significant weight. It assures users that they are dealing with a package that is directly supported and maintained by the creators of the software. This brings a level of trust and confidence, especially in the world of open-source software where provenance is key. For users, seeing that official badge is a quick way to know they are using a resource that is likely well-maintained, secure, and up-to-date.
But, the question remains: how does Artifact Hub manage this? They’ve set up a system where the official status can be granted at two levels: the repository level and the package level. When the status is granted at the repository level, it’s like giving a blanket approval – all packages housed within that repository automatically display the official badge. This is a pretty big deal, and it means that every single package in that repository must meet the criteria for being official. If even one package doesn’t fit the bill, this approach won’t work. On the other hand, if only some packages in a repository are official, those specific packages can be flagged individually. In these cases, the Official packages field comes into play, allowing publishers to specify exactly which packages earn the badge. This flexibility is crucial because it allows for a mix of official and community-contributed packages within the same repository, maintaining clarity and trust for users.
Specifics for kubewarden/annotations-policy/annotations
For the kubewarden/annotations-policy/annotations repository, we need to make sure we're aligning with these guidelines. This means carefully evaluating whether all packages within the repository truly represent official releases and are maintained by the Kubewarden team. If so, we can pursue the repository-level official status. If not, we'll need to be specific about which packages qualify.
Repository Details and Project Information
Let's get into the nitty-gritty details of the repository we're discussing:
- Repository name (in
artifacthub.io): kubewarden/annotations-policy/annotations - Official packages (leave empty if all packages in the repository are official):
- Project URL: https://kubewarden.io
- Is the publisher a CNCF project? (graduated, incubating or sandbox): Yes, sandbox
- Source code URL (if available): https://github.com/kubewarden/annotations-policy
- Other relevant URLs: if there are any other URLs that can help us with the verification process, please include them here
It’s super important to highlight these details because they play a crucial role in the verification process. The repository name gives Artifact Hub a direct link to the resource in question, while the Project URL serves as a gateway to the broader Kubewarden ecosystem. The fact that Kubewarden is a CNCF sandbox project adds another layer of credibility, signaling that it’s part of a well-respected foundation in the cloud-native space. Including the source code URL allows for transparency and verifiability, as anyone can inspect the code to ensure it aligns with the project's claims. And, of course, any other relevant URLs can provide additional context or information that might be helpful during the evaluation process. All these elements work together to build a comprehensive picture of the project's legitimacy and standing within the community.
Providing these links and affiliations not only helps in the verification process but also boosts user confidence. When potential users can easily verify the project's origins, see its source code, and understand its relationship with organizations like the CNCF, they're far more likely to trust and adopt the software. This transparency fosters a healthy ecosystem built on reliability and accountability.
Prerequisites for Applying for official Status
Before we even think about hitting that apply button, there are some crucial boxes we need to tick. Artifact Hub has laid out some clear requirements, and we need to make sure we're playing by the rules. Let's break them down:
- [x] The repository has already obtained the Verified Publisher status.
- [x] The user requesting the status is the publisher of the repository in Artifact Hub, or belongs to the organization publishing it.
- [x] All official packages available in the repository provide a
README.mdfile with some documentation that can be displayed on Artifact Hub.
Verified Publisher Status
First and foremost, we need to be a Verified Publisher. Think of this as the first level of trust – it’s Artifact Hub's way of saying,
