I'm fine with that (the points made by Brian and Mike). What would pulling a specific version from dockerhub look like? The README says only: docker pull apache/accumulo What would this command look like to get a specific version?
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3:57 PM Brian Loss <[email protected]> wrote: > > That’s a fair point about separating the releases of Accumulo from its docker > packaging. I would say that we’d want a new docker image release every time > there’s a new Accumulo release, but the reverse is what we’re wanting to > avoid. Personally, I would equate a Docker release to a RPM/DEB/etc release. > There can be bugs in the packaging, and for RPMs my (possibly incorrect) > understanding is the release number (the -1 in what I suggested) is meant to > cover that. > > > On Apr 20, 2020, at 3:32 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On naming: having a name derived from the Accumulo version makes some > > sense. However, the Docker packaging itself can be versioned in > > addition to Accumulo being versioned. There may be bugs in the > > packaging, rather than bugs in Accumulo. I wouldn't want to do a new > > release of Accumulo every time there's a minor packaging bug. > > Similarly, it doesn't necessarily seem to make sense to release new > > Docker packaging every time there's a bugfix in Accumulo, if the > > existing Docker can be configured to use the newer version of Accumulo > > with a command-line option. > > > > So, I think it makes sense to have them coupled a little... but not too > > coupled. > > > > Regarding the suggestion to include the Dockerfile inside the main > > package itself.... I'm not so sure about that. First, this gets us in > > the same position as having to release a new version of Accumulo every > > time there's a Docker packaging bug. Second, I'm not a fan of coupling > > packaging to the core project. Packaging should be downstream of the > > project. This helps ensure that the core project's decisions are > > agnostic to downstream packaging, which is a really good principle to > > try to follow so that you don't restrict downstream integration > > flexibility. > > > > FWIW, the naming convention we went with for Accumulo's maven plugin > > packaging for 2.x was: accumulo2-maven-plugin-1.0.0 (the versioning > > started over at 1.0.0, but used 'accumulo2' to communicate the intent > > that the plugin be for all Accumulo 2.x, because any client code > > compatible with 2.x should work with any future 2.x, because we are > > backwards compatible). Perhaps something similar makes sense for > > Docker? > > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 9:57 AM Michael Wall <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Thanks Brian, you bring up a good point on the latest tag. I would be fine > >> with this proposal as well. > >> > >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 9:41 AM Brian Loss <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Another possibility is to push all of that extra info into the tag. E.g., > >>> > >>> accumulo:1.9.3-1 > >>> accumulo:2.0.0-1 > >>> accumulo:2.0.0-1-alpine > >>> > >>> That seems to be the basic pattern used by projects such as openjdk. It’s > >>> true that you couldn’t then have a latest tag for Accumulo 1.9.3 and > >>> Accumulo 2.0, but I don’t believe that’s the intent of the latest tag. I > >>> believe that’s supposed to be the single latest available stable release > >>> so > >>> that if I did “docker pull accumulo” I’d get the current version. > >>> > >>>> On Apr 20, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Michael Wall <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Just now following this. Looking at dockerhub, many project do something > >>>> like accumulo:1.9.3, accumulo:2.0.0 and then > >>>> have a tag accumulo:latest that is the latest version. So if you run > >>>> `docker pull accumulo`, it uses > >>>> latest by default. I have always found this a little lacking because if > >>>> you need to update the Dockerfile for say > >>>> accumulo:1.9.3, you must overwrite the previous images. If someone used > >>>> that prior image as a base image, it is > >>>> then really hard to recreate their image from scratch if they clear out > >>>> their docker cache. > >>>> > >>>> Numbers are free, so another option is to do something thing like > >>>> accumulo-1.9.3:1, accumulo-2.0.0:4 and tag > >>>> accumulo-2.0.0:latest with the last version of accumulo-2.0.0. This is > >>>> what I tend to do. > >>>> > >>>> If we wanted to provide images running on different OS's, we might also > >>>> consider names like accumulo-1.9.3-centos7:1 > >>>> and accumulo-2.0.0-ubuntu16:2. Not sure that is necessary. > >>>> > >>>> Mike > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 9:03 AM Vincent Russell < > >>> [email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Most projects, that I've seen anyway, keep their Dockerfile in the same > >>>>> repository as their source code so that it's versioned with the software > >>>>> that its loading. > >>>>> > >>>>> Please consider doing this for accumulo. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> Vincent > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 8:05 AM karthick rn < > >>> [email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Christopher, > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Before we vote, I'd like to us to have some idea of how we will label > >>>>>>> versions of accumulo-docker releases. Any opinions? > >>>>>> Could we label the 'accumulo-docker' versions based on the Accumulo > >>>>> version > >>>>>> used in it? I thought it would be simple by just relying on Accumulo > >>>>>> version & not having to maintain a separate versioning for > >>>>>> 'accumulo-docker'. However, I'm not sure if this would be an acceptable > >>>>>> practice in Apache, others might chime if they have any ideas? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Found this JIRA https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17518, > >>> that > >>>>>> suggests 2 options for publishing images to dockerhub, the 2nd option > >>>>> looks > >>>>>> more apt for our case & like you mentioned, we'll have to engage INFRA > >>> & > >>>>>> start a discussion on "[email protected]". > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> Karthick > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 13:49, Ed Coleman <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Does the NiFi community have an established process or procedure that > >>>>>> they > >>>>>>> follow that we could copy as a guide? ( > >>>>>>> https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/nifi/) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>> From: Christopher [mailto:[email protected]] > >>>>>>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 12:23 AM > >>>>>>> To: accumulo-dev <[email protected]> > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: accumulo-docker > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> First, I don't know much about how Docker or Dockerhub works. I don't > >>>>> use > >>>>>>> docker often, and have never used Dockerhub. So that is a gap in my > >>>>>>> knowledge that will need to be filled by somebody else's expertise. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Before we distribute accumulo-docker code, we need to vote on a > >>>>> release. > >>>>>>> Any PMC member can prepare a release candidate and initiate that vote. > >>>>>>> (I'm willing to do it, once we figure out how the distribution should > >>>>>> go.) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Before we vote, I'd like to us to have some idea of how we will label > >>>>>>> versions of accumulo-docker releases. Any opinions? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> After we figure out release versioning and vote, I don't know what > >>>>> comes > >>>>>>> next. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I believe INFRA has an "organization" for Apache on Dockerhub... but > >>>>> we'd > >>>>>>> probably have to put in a ticket. > >>>>>>> A search on JIRA shows some previous similar issues: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18167?jql=project%3DINFRA%20AND%20text~dockerhub > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Those might be a good starting point for researching how to publish. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:25 PM karthick rn < > >>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi Christopher, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Following the conversation from PR#12 > >>>>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/accumulo-docker/pull/12>, I'm interested > >>>>> to > >>>>>>>> drive this forward and publish the image to Dockerhub. Let me know > >>>>> how > >>>>>>>> do I get in touch with INFRA? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>> Karthick > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> >
