Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 85.32%. Comparing base (571b155) to head (bc04267).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1610      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   85.29%   85.32%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         133      133              
  Lines        5882     5882              
==========================================
+ Hits         5017     5019       +2     
+ Misses        616      614       -2     
  Partials      249      249              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

This feature is somewhat confusing. I understand the motivation, but it does not accurately reflect backup/restore. A possible suggestion is to use dump/publish instead

If you think of it reading and writing tgz files, I think backup/restore works pretty well.

Names are hard, the equivalent docker command would be save/load.

This reduces the number of commands to create a tar archive (single of multiple) which is awesome.
I was really hoping we just enhanced pull/push to support creating the archive without other commands but am not opposed to this.
Either way really helpful.

For e.g.

oras pull --archive myarchieve.tar.gz  registry.k8s.io/kube-apiserver-arm64:v1.31.0 registry.k8s.io/kube-controller-manager-arm64:v1.31.0

oras push --archive myarchieve.tar.gz  localhost:15000/my-mirror

This might complicate the commands, but contextually might makes more sense.

@TerryHowe Thank you for revising it. Will review this proposal doc again.

This PR is stale because it has been open 45 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 30 days.

I reverted this to the last good commit. There were too many issues with those other updates.

I reverted this to the last good commit. There were too many issues with those other updates.

Just discussed with @TerryHowe about this PR. The consensus is that we will merge this PR then I will go ahead to open a follow up PR to enrich the spec.

@TerryHowe this looks good. One final question. What happens when you attempt to back up the same repository with two separate versions? Since there is the potential to have overlapping concerns/files (like the index.json file)

@TerryHowe this looks good. One final question. What happens when you attempt to back up the same repository with two separate versions? Since there is the potential to have overlapping concerns/files (like the index.json file)

@sabre1041 Would you mind clarifying "two separate versions" in the context of backup a repo?

@sabre1041 BTW, if overall looks good as the initial version, you may also want to approve this PR as you requested changes previously.

@TerryHowe this looks good. One final question. What happens when you attempt to back up the same repository with two separate versions? Since there is the potential to have overlapping concerns/files (like the index.json file)

With OCI file layout it just adds another manifest in one blob directory:

{
  "schemaVersion": 2,
  "mediaType": "application/vnd.oci.image.index.v1+json",
  "manifests": [
    {
      "mediaType": "application/vnd.docker.distribution.manifest.v2+json",
      "digest": "sha256:74a8050ec347821b7884ab635f3e7883b5c570388ed8087ffd01fd9fe1cb39c6",
      "size": 3024,
      "annotations": {
        "org.opencontainers.image.ref.name": "registry.k8s.io/kube-apiserver-arm64:v1.31.0"
      }
    },
    {
      "mediaType": "application/vnd.docker.distribution.manifest.v2+json",
      "digest": "sha256:9ff42b586c0a57f3fc4a0689afe6db4d8f92f7f79bef3b47b2c75ab112e17de7",
      "size": 3024,
      "annotations": {
        "org.opencontainers.image.ref.name": "registry.k8s.io/kube-apiserver-arm64:v1.32.0"
      }
    }
  ]
}