Support for Docker Registry 2.0

[joberget]

Hi, Docker released Registry 2.0 which supersedes https://github.com/docker/docker-registry. I hope this project will support it.

Registry 2.0
https://github.com/docker/distribution

[kwk]

Yes, there are plans in the making.

[joberget]

Great to hear!

[rexberg]

I'm pleased to hear. 👍

[kwk]

We need to have the search API implemented in the docker registry itself. Also, distribution/distribution/pull/173 needs to be implemented to have a tagging API.

[AngryHacker]

@kwk Great to hear that you plan to support registry V2.

May I ask when it will be available? Or it just depends on the two APIs needed to be implemented by docker/distribution -- In other word, it may cost a long period?

[kwk]

@AngryHacker

May I ask when it will be available?

I hope we have a first version by the end of July. I suggest we collect features that shall be in it including those that we already have in the current frontend. One issue for each feature would be perfect (e.g. starting with the basic "Show all repositories", "List images inside a repository") and then label each issue with Feature planned for Docker Registry API v2 support.

Or it just depends on the two APIs needed to be implemented by docker/distribution -- In other word, it may cost a long period?

No, I it does not depend on these.

[kwk]

I've also created a milestone for this task. Feel free to open features you'd like to see in an early or later version of the frontend and I'll assign them the correct label and add them to the milestone.

[AngryHacker]

@kwk It seems that the two APIs is not available in distribution. Is it a trouble to implement API v2 support?

[kikicarbonell]

I'm pleased to hear. 👍

[catuss-a]

+1, waiting the api v2 support!

[ghost]

+1

[jgangemi]

not sure if you've seen this but there are plans to include some kind of catalog api to the registry that would eliminate the need to listen for webhooks: distribution/distribution#583

[jonatanblue]

Great to hear your plans for v2.

the docker-registry-frontend knows no state and is only reflecting a registry through the HTTP API

Is this a bad thing though?

Also looks like the API updates @jgangemi mentioned are happening distribution/distribution#653

[bateau84]

+1

[deimosfr]

+1

[jose-delarosa]

Any current issues with v2.0? I pull the image, run it as instructed (specifying registry host and port), no SSL, no Kerberos, nothing fancy but when I go to the web ui (great look by the way) I do NOT see my registry.

[jonatanblue]

@jose-delarosa this issue still being open suggests that there is still no support for v2

[jose-delarosa]

@jonatanblue, yes that makes sense and the Docker Hub page makes it clear it is still under heavy development. I appreciate all the work everyone here does, I am but a humble user of your great work.

[bchanan03]

hi all,
any progress here? on registry v2.1.1 - according to Docker registry API should work

[kwk]

@bchanan03 Can you elaborate on that? You can try running the docker-registry-frontend:v2 tag. It is a temporal solution with much less features than before but it should list repos and tags fine. I use it myself.

[bchanan03]

Hi
(Please note this is a copy of respone on bug #66)
I have same problem - am using docker registry v2.1.1 and here is the yaml file:
http://pastebin.com/XTjfWYTJ
As my docker registry is new - I was able to push localhost:5000/busybox into it
Also I was able to pull the image - but the UI still shows empty list of images on my repository

Here is how I started docker registry:
/usr/bin/docker run -d -p 5000:5000 -v /home/core/trust_authority/containers//secure-registry/config.yml:/go/src/github.com/docker/distribution/cmd/registry/config.yml -e SEARCH_BACKEND=sqlalchemy -e SQLALCHEMY_INDEX_DATABASE=sqlite:////tmp/docker-registry.db --name secure-registry registry:2.1.1

Here is how I started docker registry UI v2:
docker run -d -e ENV_DOCKER_REGISTRY_HOST=localhost -e ENV_DOCKER_REGISTRY_HOST=5000 -p 8080:80 konradkleine/docker-registry-frontend:v2

[kwk]

I've locked this issue because it is too vague. There are other issues that also deal with v2 support but are much more differentiated.