+1 very nice explanation
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 1:57 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote:
> +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
>>>
>>
