patricklucas commented on PR #158: URL: https://github.com/apache/flink-docker/pull/158#issuecomment-1704877844
> But then I might ask why `flink:1.16` is even an option for a base image if we still have to worry about patch version changes? Hi @daniel-packard, original author of flink-docker here. During the process of making these images available we found that developing "official" Docker images always comes with some tradeoffs between the different ways the images are used, especially with respect to configuration defaults, for example, but also image tags. We want to have production-ready images, of course, but also make it convenient for ad hoc usage by developers—and most Flink users typically think of the Flink minor version they are using rather than the patch version (i.e. a user should be able to `docker run flink` or `docker run flink:1.17` and get some useful output. For production usage, it's usually a good idea to anchor yourself to a sufficiently-specific version which can vary by application (`debian:12` is probably fine; for Python you probably want at least `python:3.11`; for Flink, I would go with `flink:1.17.1`—sometimes users even pin to a specific `@sha256:...`). So to answer your question, there's a good argument to be made that we should only publish Flink patch version tags, but that would come with the tradeoff of preventing new users of the images from running `docker run flink` or using `flink:1.17` in their Docker Compose configs, for instance. -- 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. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
