On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 at 16:07, Gian Merlino <g...@apache.org> wrote:
> For Q1 - I have the feeling that if we asked the powers that be at Apache
> for an opinion on bundling the MySQL connector that they would not be fans
> of the idea -- mostly because it is not allowed for binary tarball
> releases, and I don't see why it would be different for Docker releases. So
> because of that, I wouldn't be comfortable bundling the mysql-connector jar
> unless we actually _did_ ask the powers that be, and they said it's ok. The
> powers that be are probably either ASF Legal or the Incubator PMC.
>
> For Q2 - IMO precedent established by other projects means this is not
> likely an issue. Probably because of the mere-aggregation reason you
> brought up.
>
> If we want to release official Docker images then this will also need to be
> incorporated into our build process. Don are you interested in researching
> / proposing how that might be done? Anyone else - should we have a
> discussion about whether we want official Docker images as part of our
> release process? Personally, if it doesn't impose much additional burden on
> release managers, and the image is something that is easy to run in
> production in a way that we are comfortable supporting as a community, I am
> for it. (I haven't reviewed the PR enough to have an opinion on that.)
>
>
>
Its pretty trivial to let the dockerhub run its own pipeline on any {tag |
merge} in git.
it does this automatically.
Or, its not too hard to have travis have some keys to do a push and it in
turn is gated
by a {tag | merge}.
some projects build the release on each 'tag' created.
some build on tag matching pattern
some build on any merge commit to master.
IMO w/o a release of container to a public repo this is pointless, its what
people
expect.
I don't have any particular domain knowledge in the area but am willing to
do
some work if it is identified as needing done.
how do i drive to consensus on the mysql thing?
