SG +1 On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 12:59 PM Hannah Jiang <hannahji...@google.com> wrote:
> 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 <al...@google.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:33 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:32 PM Ankur Goenka <goe...@google.com> 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 <rober...@google.com>
>>>> 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 <hannahji...@google.com>
>>>>> 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 <kcwea...@google.com>
>>>>> 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 <al...@google.com>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
