Emily Casey

Some thoughts: I agree with @dmikusa-pivotal that 1. This should be optional 2. If possible we should enable use of an existing solution rather than reimplement an init process in...

The high levels concerns I have here are around: 1. Migration Path 2. API orthogonality 3. Platform/Builder/Stack/Lifecycle compatibility matrix Here are the outstanding questions I think we need answers to:...

Capturing a discussion from WG, Stephen proposed: 1. Moving "top-level" files to a different "config" directory so that the layers dir provided to the buildpack is exclusively for layers and...

@samj1912 I am convinced that we can approve a version of this without blocking on the daemon removal. However I still feel pretty strongly that we shouldn't make the lifecycle...

Summary of WG Discussion 02/17/22 There is lingering discomfort around storing this SBOM in the run image because: 1. special tooling is required to create the image 2. it may...

Makes sense. I think remote.NewImage, needs a `WithPlatform` option that we can pass through to `ggcr` so we can select the correct manifest from the list.

Rather than overriding `v1Config()` I would rather we add more functionality to the `imgutil.Image` interface to expose whatever features are missing. What fields in config would you like to be...