On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Il mar 15 ago 2017, 09:16 Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > On Aug 14, 2017 11:18 PM, "Enrico Olivelli" <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Il mar 15 ago 2017, 03:29 Jia Zhai <zhaiji...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > > > Hi Sijie, > > > From my view, the approach problem is whether we have permissions to > > > "docker push" images into wanted place. > > > Following the way putting images under "apache", we seems not have > > > permission, While following the "Official > > > <https://docs.docker.com/docker-hub/official_repos/>" way, seems > > neither. > > > > > > Since nightly build is mainly for our development, It maybe OK to > manage > > > and maintain a dockerhub account by our community to hold the nightly > > > one(maybe also for the release images). > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Jia Zhai <zhaiji...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks Sijie for raising these good topics up. > > > > > > > > > > Regarding 1) official image, the Flink one is similar as Zookeeper > > one, > > > > > which we have discussed before. If the currently approach could not > > > make > > > > > bookkeeper docker image official, we should go this way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding 2) nightly build, there is already an issue > > > > > <https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/289> opened. Seems > the > > > > issue > > > > > is where to put the nightly build images, since for both way of > > > official > > > > > image, there is limited access to the dockerhub, The first thought > in > > > my > > > > > head is to place a nightly build somewhere, such as ( > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bookkeeper/), and the > current > > > > > docker > > > > > file will not changed too much, seems only some env var need > change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > currently we don't have any process to produce any nightly built > > > packages. > > > > > > > > If we are planning to use dist/dev for hosting the nightly build, we > > need > > > > to figure out how to get the credentials to do that. > > > > Because the dist/dev is a svn repo, during a release, the release > > manager > > > > uses its own credentials to commit the new packages to the svn repo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding 3), the build failure > > > > > <https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/bookkeeper/builds/ > > > > > bvzft3fsnpmmj5i8jnpk3fl/> > > > > > is caused by connection(from dockerhub to gpg key server) issue. It > > is > > > > also > > > > > one reason to come out PR420 <https://github.com/apache/ > > > > > bookkeeper/pull/420>, > > > > > which wanted to download local KEY to avoid gpg server connection, > > But > > > we > > > > > agree that it is not very security. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think there are a few drawbacks that I can see in current approach: > > > > > > > > - building the packages and building the docker images are managed by > > two > > > > different systems. > > > > - the `latest` image isn't really a tag pointing to the image of > latest > > > > release; the latest is actually building from master. any changes > > pushed > > > to > > > > master unnecessarily trigger auto build in docker hub, even the > package > > > > itself isn't changed. > > > > > > > > > > "latest" is some kind of place holder, I thought to use it to point to > > the > > > nightly version, seems I was mis-understanding of it. > > > > > > > My two cents > > IMHO latest should be v the latest stable version > > > > > > Yes that's my thought as well. Then it should be just a tag for the image > > of latest release. However in current approach, it keeps regenerating a > > image everytime there is a change on master. This doesn't make any sense > to > > me. > > > > We have to touch the latest tag only as part of the release process. > Currently latest is not just a tag of 4.5.0. they are separate images generated by docker auto builds. > > > > > > > One step back, what is the purpose of having this image? I mean an image > of > > the master branch. > > > > > > It can be used in a CD (continuous deployment) pipeline, you can deploy > the > > image to a dockerized environment to verify if it is working or not. > > > > Yup, so it is like the maven snapshots. > From the licensing point in that case all the constraints are relaxed, we > can really use a PMC managed repository > > > > > > > If you only need to have a working bookkeeper server for docker we can > use > > the maven docker plugin which is well integreated with maven based > > environments. The problem of where to put is is still here. Sometime ago > > for a project I had just created a free account on docker hub and pushed > > there the image directly from the build. > > Jia already created a BookKeeper account, we could use it. > > Credentials will be managed by PMC > > > > > > Enrico > > > > > > > > > > > > - building a nightly package is not trivial. > > > > > > > > If we step back and revisit my comment in > > > > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/197#issuecomment-317831799 > , > > if > > > > we > > > > use `docker push` approach and let jenkins build and push docker > > images, > > > it > > > > seems to be much easier > > > > to address the above issues. > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > - Sijie > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > -- Enrico Olivelli > > > -- > > > -- Enrico Olivelli >
