+1 - Thank you for driving this!
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 1:55 PM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 for the namespace proposal.
>
> It is similar to github repos. Top-level is the org, then single level for
> repo (beam-abc, beam-xzy, ..)
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 1:45 PM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Various tags of the same image should at least logically be the same
>> thing, so I agree that we should not be trying to share a single
>> repository in that way. A full suite of apache/beam-{image_desc}
>> repositories, if apache is fine with that, seems like the best
>> approach.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 1:32 PM Kyle Weaver <kcwea...@google.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > +1, agree that moving current image name to tags is a non-starter.
>> Thanks for driving this Hannah. Let us know what they say about repo
>> creation.
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 1:16 PM Udi Meiri <eh...@google.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 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
>>
>
