I have done some research about images released under apache namespace at
docker hub, and here is my proposal.
Currently, we are using apachebeam as our namespace and each image has its
own repository. Version number is used to tag the images.
ie: apachebeam/python2.7_sdk:2.19.0, apachebeam/flink1.9_job_server:2.19.0
Now we are migrating to apache namespace and docker hub doesn't support
nested repository names, so we cannot use
apache/beam/{image-desc}:{version}.
Instead, I propose to use *apache/beam-{image_desc}:{version}* as our
repository name.
ie: apache/beam-python2.7_sdk:2.19.0, apache/beam-flink1.9_job_server:2.19.0
=> When a user searches for *apache/beam* at docker hub, it will list all
the repositories we deployed with apache/beam-, so no concerns that some
released images are missed by users.
=> Repository names give insights to the users which repositories they
should use.
=> A downside with this approach is we need to create a new repository
whenever we release a new image, time and effort needed for this is
pending, I am contacting apache docker hub management team.
I have considered using beam as repository name and moving image name and
version to tags, (ie: apache/beam:python3.7_sdk_2.19.0), which means put
all images to a single repository, however, this approach has some
downsides.
=> When a user searches for apache/beam, only one repository is returned.
Users need to use tags to identify which images they should use. Since we
release images with new tags for each version, it will overwhelm the users
and give them an impression that the images are not organized well. It's
also difficult to know what kind of images we deployed.
=> With both image name and version included at tags, it is a little bit
more complicated to maintain the code.
=> There is no correct answer which image the latest tag should point to.
Are there any concerns with this proposal?
Thanks,
Hannah
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 4:19 PM Ahmet Altay <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:33 PM Ahmet Altay <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:32 PM Ankur Goenka <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Also curious to know if apache provide any infra support fro projects
>>> under Apache umbrella and any quota limits they might have.
>>>
>>
> Maybe Hannah can ask with an infra ticket?
>
>
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 2:26 PM Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> One downside is that, unlike many of these projects, we release a
>>>> dozen or so containers. Is there exactly (and only) one level of
>>>> namespacing/nesting we can leverage here? (This isn't a blocker, but
>>>> something to consider.)
>>>>
>>>
>> After a quick search, I could not find a way to use more than one level
>> of repositories. We can use the naming scheme we currently use to help
>> with. Our repositories are named as apachebeam/X, we could start using
>> apache/beam/X.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:06 PM Hannah Jiang <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks Ahmet for proposing it.
>>>> > I will take it and work towards v2.19.
>>>>
>>>
> Missed this part. Thank you Hannah!
>
>
>> >
>>>> > Hannah
>>>> >
>>>> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 1:50 PM Kyle Weaver <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It'd be nice to have the clout/official sheen of apache attached to
>>>> our containers. Although getting the required permissions might add some
>>>> small overhead to the release process. For example, yesterday, when we
>>>> needed to create new repositories (not just update existing ones), since we
>>>> have top-level ownership of the apachebeam organization, it was quick and
>>>> easy to add them. I imagine we'd have had to get approval from someone
>>>> outside the project to do that under the apache org. But this won't need to
>>>> happen very often, so it's probably not that big a deal.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 1:40 PM Ahmet Altay <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Hi all,
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I saw recent progress on the containers and wanted to bring this
>>>> question to the attention of the dev list.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Would it be possible to use the official ASF dockerhub organization
>>>> for new Beam container releases? Concretely, starting from 2.19 could we
>>>> release Beam containers to https://hub.docker.com/u/apache instead of
>>>> https://hub.docker.com/u/apachebeam ?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Ahmet
>>>>
>>>
