uce commented on a change in pull request #127:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink-statefun/pull/127#discussion_r448238791
##########
File path: docs/deployment-and-operations/packaging.md
##########
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ The provided base image allows teams to package their
applications with all the
Below is an example Dockerfile for building a Stateful Functions image with
both an [embedded module]({{ site.baseurl }}/sdk/modules.html#embedded-module)
and a [remote module]({{ site.baseurl }}/sdk/modules.html#remote-module) for an
application called ``statefun-example``.
{% highlight dockerfile %}
-FROM flink-statefun:{{ site.version }}
+FROM ververica/flink-statefun:{{ site.version }}
Review comment:
I agree that `flink-statefun` without the `ververica` repository is
preferrable, but I think we haven't published the image as an official library
image yet (at least I can't `docker pull flink-statefun:2.1.0`), right?
My reasoning for the change was that with the `ververica` repository prefix
the Dockerfile snippets work without requiring users to manually build the
statefun image locally. What do you think?
(I'm happy to revert this change. I actually kept it as a separate commit,
because I was expecting that this might have been on purpose.)
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
