Add documentation about Alpine type #697
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: John Speed Meyers <jsmeyers@chainguard.dev>
nsmith5
approved these changes
Mar 1, 2022
bobcallaway
approved these changes
Mar 2, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Signed-off-by: John Speed Meyers jsmeyers@chainguard.dev
Summary
Adds some documentation related to the Alpine type. Pinging @bobcallaway for review. And @nsmith5 for situational awareness.
Question: When
AttestationandAttestationTypefields are blank, should the consumer of the results fromrekor-cliassume that that entry is a vanilla signature? If so, should this blank field value interpretation be documented?Ticket Link
Refers to issue #665.
Release Note