feat: recipe v2 blog

[xynydev]

No description provided.

[github-actions]

💙 Build successful! 💙

Preview deployment: https://recipe-v2-bluebuild-website.xyny.workers.dev/

[xynydev]

@gmpinder

I started writing this, and, well, trying to document something truly might be an ultimate test of whether it makes sense or not.

It turns out, I might have been too eager to approve the Recipe V2 spec as it is...

Here are some things that hurt my brain while writing this:

• I can't justify tags being under spec, because name is under metadata and name is clearly also something very much technical that you pull the image by referring to just like tags... It would make much more sense for name and tags to be under the same category.
• This is not as important, but thinking of this whole metadata thing, somehow it feels weird that name is metadata at all, since it's considered more like the public identifier of the image. But I guess it makes sense somewhat. Metadata just somehow sounds so "optional" to my brain, like of course you could leave the description and labels empty, but I guess the description is mandatory as well... Hmm... Why are the descriptions mandatory btw, I don't think that's a standard thing, it's just a label. Besides, GitHub doesn't even see our base images having any descriptions at all: github link

• If you're not verifying with a public key and you're defining the base image as a ref string and not by parts, it will look like this:

   base:
     image: ghcr.io/blue-build/base-images/fedora-silverblue:gts

  feels a bit odd with the identation and all. I mean I guess it makes sense, I just wish YAML allowed us to write base.image: or something. One could always fix this by allowing base: to be a ref string as well, too. Not sure if it is worth the effort. Something about the snippet above just makes me cringe. I guess it's just YAML, if it was TOML or something It would not look strange to me.