yes. I was thinking of doing the flink way to have an official image repo at docker hub.
- Sijie On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Jia Zhai <zhaiji...@gmail.com> wrote: > I remember that, Do you mean we do bookkeeper docker following zookeeper > and flink's way? > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:19 AM, Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I think it is better to change the docker image process, leaving tag > > untouched. I have raised the discussion about official docker image ago. > > That was for addressing the issues I have seen in docker image > generation. > > I think we should revisit docker release process rather than tag. > > > > On Nov 29, 2017 1:29 PM, "Enrico Olivelli" <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > During the release process we are voting a 'tag' but because of docker > > > builder requirements we have to drop that voted tag and create a new > one. > > > I think that we can improve this process by writing explicitly the > commit > > > sha in the vote email so that it is clear what PMC and other > > > committers/contributors are voting and they are sure that this will not > > be > > > altered in the future. > > > I saw this in Apache Calcite vote process for instance. > > > We can also make an improvement to write the git sha on manifests as we > > are > > > voting on binaries (I think that the vote is really on source, not on > > > binaries) > > > > > > This is just an idea, maybe I misunderstand the process. But in this > case > > > it would be better not to cite the tag in the email and let people vote > > > only on the staged source artifacts and/or make it clearer in the email > > > what exactly we are going to release (binaries, sources, git sha, git > > > tag...) > > > > > > I am not a lawyer I just want to understand what I am doing and improve > > > things. > > > > > > Enrico > > > -- > > > > > > > > > -- Enrico Olivelli > > > > > >
