Thanks Celeste! I left a few comments. Overall I like the proposal, but I think that the open question "If Beam SDK containers are still released by the release manager, how should we integrate the multiarch containers into the current Beam container release process?" needs to be answered before I can be fully +1 on the proposal. Ideally this shouldn't create any special work for release managers (other than waiting a bit longer for the docker publish steps to finish).
Thanks, Danny On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 6:59 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev <valen...@google.com> wrote: > Hi Celeste, > > Thanks for the proposal and researching the options. Using multi-arch > images seems like a good way to reduce the complexity associated with > correctly selecting the architecture on the runner. It sounds like there > may be implications for release process, which future release managers may > need to be aware of, and there might be an increase in some test suites > time now once we build ARM images. > > Left a few comments on the doc and happy to help with PR review when it is > ready. > > bcc'ing a few folks who might have feedback or to whom this proposal might > be of interest. > > Valentyn > > > > On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 3:12 PM Celeste Zeng <celestezen...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> My name is Celeste. I work for the GCP Dataflow team and I am trying to >> add ARM support to Beam SDK container images. The ultimate goal is to make >> the released Beam SDK container images become multi-arch images, which >> support both x86 and ARM. I compiled the following doc to include the >> feature overview, my proposed implementation plan, as well as testing plan. >> And I appreciate any feedback! >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ikbEJNsFH1D9HqiMqiVyyMlNpDgSqxXK22nUoetzW6I/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Also, please refer to the pull request to see proposed changes: >> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/27311 >> >> Thanks a lot! >> >> Sincerely, >> Celeste Zeng >> celestezen...@gmail.com >> >
