[pdeuchler]

With all due respect, this is exactly the attitude that will prevent enterprises from ever taking Docker seriously.

Why should enterprises trust you on backwards compatibility when longstanding issues with backwards compatibility were just fixed and then glossed over like this ("it never broke in practice because we forcibly made you update")? Docker has repeatedly made poor decisions with really poor optics both in the open source community and with their product, this is just one example, and asking enterprises to just trust you now while not even providing the support terms most of the enterprise world demands is doing the exact opposite of inspiring trust.

Do you honestly not remember sunsetting the python docker registry just a year and a half ago and then introducing a brand new golang registry product with an entirely different API? Because that's precisely what enterprises pay to avoid, they don't shell out absurd money for LTS versions to hit a constantly moving target. And please don't patronize me with "past problem", some of us lowly end users of your product had to clean up that mess just to get day to day operations working again. Forgive me if I'm gunshy.

[shykes]

My intention is not dismiss your complaint, but to gather more details so I can help.

Here is a list of known past breaking changes in the Docker API. https://docs.docker.com/engine/breaking_changes/

If you have encountered a breaking change that is not on the list, could you mention it either here or on https://github.com/docker/docker.github.io ?

Some of your claims about breaking backwards compatibility above are incorrect. I am trying my best to point that out without seeming dismissive of your overall point - which I think is that Docker can do more to improve stability and backwards-compat. I agree with that point.