Yea it's not the changelog for the docker images but the changelog for the tool that builds it. I don't have a suggestion but does make sense. Maybe in addition to GitHub releases, a changelog entry is added to indicate this point forward at least will have the change or something?
But yea. Release notes make sense now On Wed., Jul. 24, 2019, 12:02 a.m. Oleg Nenashev, <[email protected]> wrote: > There is a direct 1:1 mapping between Jenkins versions and Docker tags. > But there is no mapping between Jenkins versions and Docker packaging flow. > Basically one can take Docker packaging from the GitHub repo and build an > image for any Jenkins version by setting ARGs. > > That's why I use the "Docker packaging changelog" term. Sorry if this is > still confusing > > > On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 1:47:35 AM UTC+2, slide wrote: >> >> I think the tags in dockerhub would remain tied to a version of Jenkins, >> meaning you could still do jenkins/jenkins:2.185-slim to get a Jenkins >> 2.185 version. I think this is more for changelog info and releases on the >> github to "tag" the changes that are occurring in the scripts and infra to >> build the image. People would be able to see changes in ENV and ARG items >> and so forth that only relate to the docker images themselves. I am not >> sure how this would be notated in a tag on dockerhub, maybe that needs to >> be spelled out more in the proposal. >> >> On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 4:26:32 PM UTC-7, Gavin Mogan wrote: >>> >>> Shouldn't there be a 1:1 or 1:many relationship between a Jenkins >>> release and docker release? >>> >>> Jenkins 2.150 should map to jenkinsci/Jenkins:2.150 docker image (I >>> forgot the docker url but should be similar) >>> >>> Maybe 2.150-1 if a docker specific fix need to go out? >>> >>> If so, wouldn't those changes be appropriate to tie to the same version >>> in the changelog? Maybe with a docker label/pill to say it's docker only. >>> >>> Gavin >>> >>> On Tue., Jul. 23, 2019, 2:38 p.m. Oleg Nenashev, <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> As many of Docker adopters know, we do not regularly put packaging >>>> changelogs to Jenkins release notes: https://jenkins.io/changelog/. >>>> Unless something goes really wrong, users have no practical way to know >>>> what has changed in Docker packaging, and they have to go to the commit >>>> history and somehow track down the commit used for their Jenkins version. >>>> It is a natural follow-up to the Continuous Delivery we use for Docker >>>> images, but is not convenient for many users. Docker packaging is a >>>> mission-critical deliverable for the Jenkins project, and I believe users >>>> deserve to see the changelogs tehere and to see cool features we deliver >>>> there (like recent official CentOS images). >>>> >>>> I would like to propose adding changelog for Docker releases. I have 2 >>>> versioning options in mind: >>>> >>>> Option 1: >>>> >>>> - We introduce independent versioning for Docker packaging. This >>>> versioning follows the semver approach, and we start from 2.0.0 or any >>>> similar version which is explicitly different from Jenkins versioning >>>> - Release versions are considered as experimental, delivery >>>> pipelines keep using latest versions and commit references as before >>>> - If the experiment gets positive user feedback, we review options >>>> to align Docker packaging versions and Jenkins >>>> >>>> Option 2: >>>> >>>> - We retrospectively follow Jenkins LTS versioning. Docker >>>> packaging version changelogs are released when we de-facto know what >>>> went >>>> to LTS >>>> - Such approach might be more convenient for LTS users, and we can >>>> lnk changelogs from Jenkins release notes >>>> - If the approach is well accepted by users, we can again >>>> reconsider the implementation to make versions a part of the delivery >>>> pipeline >>>> >>>> I have submitted https://github.com/jenkinsci/docker/pull/856 which >>>> enables semver changelogs for Docker packaging. If the experiment is >>>> successful, we could do similar change in >>>> https://github.com/jenkinsci/packaging . >>>> >>>> I would appreciate feedback about the proposed options. >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance, >>>> Oleg >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAPfivLD%3D0PDCEe96ERFSAmxk7Uinmy91_G7DaBgHymcT%3DphVRA%40mail.gmail.com >>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAPfivLD%3D0PDCEe96ERFSAmxk7Uinmy91_G7DaBgHymcT%3DphVRA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>> . >>>> >>> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Jenkins Developers" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/d01c6753-13ce-4c3e-a797-3d082ce108f1%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/d01c6753-13ce-4c3e-a797-3d082ce108f1%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAG%3D_Duv2PTCFt3nux8DbQBMxqH-XKq-C8evVtPmHTBBWZuykAw%40mail.gmail.com.
