I’ve been giving some thought about this recently. Maybe we could create a central repo with a JSON or Yaml manifest file that includes the names or our docker runtime images and the hashes/versions. We could tag/release these with version numbers synchronized with our main repository (in our current case 0.9.0). All our deployments would then read this centralized manifest to see which runtimes to pull in for their corresponding version numbers.
This might allow us to vote in one location as the new version would include all dependent docker images. This would also be helpful when adding a new runtime. If all our deployment methods pull in the centralized file to read the runtimes available we won’t have to hardcode all the different runtimes we have in each deployment method. I recently bumped into docker-compose always pulling in the latest version of our containers but then failing because we had changed some of the dependent variables in the docker image but forgot to do so in our Docker Compose configuration files. With the centralized runtime manifest we could easily lock our deployments (including docker compose) to a release version with limited hassle. Cheers, Justin Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 27, 2018, at 12:39 PM, Vincent S Hou <[email protected]> wrote: > > For convenience of release management in Apache. > * We can send one or two vote email(s) instead of 6. > * The download page of openwhisk.org can allocate one section to offer the > download links of runtimes. > > > > Best wishes. > Vincent Hou (侯胜博) > > Advisory Software Engineer, OpenWhisk Contributor, Open Technology, IBM Cloud > > Notes ID: Vincent S Hou/Raleigh/IBM, E-mail: [email protected], > Phone: +1(919)254-7182 > Address: 4205 S Miami Blvd (Cornwallis Drive), Durham, NC 27703, United States > > -----Rodric Rabbah <[email protected]> wrote: ----- > To: [email protected] > From: Rodric Rabbah <[email protected]> > Date: 08/27/2018 11:45AM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION]: Proposing to use 1.12.0 as the version for all > runtimes for the first-time release under Apache > > Why do they all need to start from the same version? > >> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Vincent S Hou <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi OpenWhiskers, >> >> We are on our way to release OpenWhisk runtimes under Apache for the first >> time. As you may notice or not, each individual runtime repository has >> already used >> its own version numbers as the build tag for quite a while. In order not >> to disrupt the current versioning number and also accommodating the release >> work under Apache, I would like to propose 1.12.0 as the version number for >> the first time we release the six runtimes under Apache, because this >> version number is the minimum >> nominator I find for all the runtimes so far. >> >> We now have following runtimes, which have already released with their >> version numbers: >> docker skeleton v1.3.3 >> python2 v1.0.3 >> python3 v.1.0.3 >> node8 v1.12.0 >> node6 v1.12.0 >> php7.2 v1.0.2 >> swift4.1 v1.0.8 >> java8 v1.1.2 >> >> I think 1.12.0 can match them all, and then use it as a common ground to >> move on with further version numbers. I would like to hear your comments. >> If no objection is heard, I will move on with 1.12.0 for the runtimes to >> be released under Apache for the first time. >> >> Best wishes, >> Vincent Hou >> >> >> >
