+1, granting permission to individual accounts is preferable to trying
to share a single account.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 9:44 AM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote:
>
> Could we ask them to buik add a list of people to add to the list? We could
> add all PMC members and previous release managers to the list. That might
> cover a good chunk of the future releases.
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 10:10 PM Hannah Jiang <hannahji...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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
