Thanks everyone for supporting it.
Yes, it's very slow to get tickets resolved by infra. I propose a minor
improvement to reduce interactions with infra.
So far, we have granted maintainer permission(read & write) to release
managers' personal accounts. This step needs help from infra to add new
members to the group for every new release manager.
In order to avoid this, I proposed that we create a new account for release
purpose only and share it with release managers. The new account will have
read & write permissions to all Apache Beam docker repositories. A password
will be shared on an as-needed basis and we can change the password
periodically if needed, which is in our control. Are there any concerns
which I am not aware of with the sharing account approach?
Thanks,
Hannah
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 10:41 AM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote:
> +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
>>>>
>>>
