Re: Proposal to switch from OpenJDK to AdoptOpenJDK

[Tim Jacomb]

You shouldn’t need to set any flags on java 8 since u191 for enhanced
container support

https://medium.com/adorsys/usecontainersupport-to-the-rescue-e77d6cfea712



On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 19:21, Oleg Nenashev  wrote:

> As for your comment on OpenJ9, what did you mean by saying it will be more
>> tricky taking historical reports in JIRA?
>
> Will try to reply later once I have time to find issue links
>
>
>> Is there an issue/discussion open for the move to Java 11? I would love
>> to see this happen as well!
>
> No discussion. JEP-211
>  deliberately set
> no timeline for switching to Java 11 by default. We ship official OpenJDK
> 11 images tho.
> But for me it is a no-brainer that we should switch sooner or later. Our
> default images do not set experimental flags for Java 8 to enable
> integration with cgroups, so basically Jenkins does not apply resource
> restrictions n Docker and K8s.
> I think Java 11 enablement is justified just by this fact.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 9:09 PM Jim Crowley  wrote:
>
>> Oleg,
>>
>> That’s a good idea. Support both before we make the full switch over to
>> AdoptOpenJDK.
>>
>> As for your comment on OpenJ9, what did you mean by saying it will be
>> more tricky taking historical reports in JIRA?
>>
>> Is there an issue/discussion open for the move to Java 11? I would love
>> to see this happen as well!
>>
>>
>> On Friday, October 25, 2019 at 2:03:38 PM UTC-4, Oleg Nenashev wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry for being late to the thread. I am +1 for migrating Jenkins to
>>> AdoptOpenJDK by default.
>>> We already run significant parts of our infrastructure on AdoptOpenJDK,
>>> and so far I have not seen any issues when the HotSpot engine is used.
>>> OpenJ9 would be much more tricky taking the historical reports in
>>> Jenkins JIRA.
>>>
>>> We also have an option to ship OpenJDK and AdoptOpenJDK images in
>>> parallel and then move when we feel it works well.
>>> Bonus points for switching to Java 11 by default at the same time :D
>>>
>>>
>>> BR, Oleg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, October 23, 2019 at 8:08:42 PM UTC+3, Jim Crowley wrote:

 Thanks for the information and invite. I'll try to make it tomorrow.

 On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 5:04:20 PM UTC-4, Mark Waite wrote:
>
> This seems like a very good topic for discussion in the Jenkins
> Platform Special Interest Group meeting Thursday at 14:00 UTC (
> https://jenkins.io/sigs/platform/#meetings)  .  I've added two items
> to the agenda (
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bDfUdtjpwoX0HO2PRnfqns_TROBOK8tmP6SgVhubr2Y/edit#
> ).
>
> The meeting is hosted through Zoom video conferencing and is
> recorded.  The meeting URL is posted to the Gitter channel about 10 
> minutes
> before the meeting starts ( https://gitter.im/jenkinsci/platform-sig).
>
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 2:49 PM Jim Crowley  wrote:
>
>> Irwin,
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the links! One of those issue is one I opened up! Like I
>> mentioned to Mark, I spoke with the Adopt team and the additional support
>> of more base images are coming in the next PR. The testing framework 
>> needs
>> to be updated first to support the additional bases.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 4:30:20 PM UTC-4, Irwin D'Souza wrote:
>>>
>>> I mentioned this thread on the AdoptOpenJDK slack instance; it looks
>>> like there's been talks around increased Docker base image coverage:
>>> https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-docker/issues/236 &
>>> https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-tests/issues/1109
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 1:47 PM Mark Waite 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Yes, issues with musl vs. glibc were the key reason that I had
 heard for OpenJDK to not be willing to support Java 11 on Alpine.

 I don't see any mention of Alpine or Debian on the official images
 page at  https://hub.docker.com/_/adoptopenjdk .  There is mention
 of Alpine and Debian on the unofficial images page at
 https://hub.docker.com/r/adoptopenjdk/openjdk8 .  Is there
 somewhere that the difference between official and unofficial 
 AdoptOpenJDK
 images is described?

 On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 7:30 AM Jim Crowley 
 wrote:

> Mark,
>
> For Alpine are you referring to the issue with glibc vs musl? It
> looks like the AdoptOpenJDK team built Alpine images with glibc 
> install on
> top of the base image. You can look at the Dockefile here,
> https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-docker/tree/master/8/jdk/alpine
> .
>
> I am loving the AdoptOpenJDK team's support for multiple platforms
> too! I think it is also nice having all the OpenJ9 builds as well as
> Hotspot. Give users more 

Re: Proposal to switch from OpenJDK to AdoptOpenJDK

[Oleg Nenashev]

>
> As for your comment on OpenJ9, what did you mean by saying it will be more
> tricky taking historical reports in JIRA?

Will try to reply later once I have time to find issue links


> Is there an issue/discussion open for the move to Java 11? I would love to
> see this happen as well!

No discussion. JEP-211
 deliberately set no
timeline for switching to Java 11 by default. We ship official OpenJDK 11
images tho.
But for me it is a no-brainer that we should switch sooner or later. Our
default images do not set experimental flags for Java 8 to enable
integration with cgroups, so basically Jenkins does not apply resource
restrictions n Docker and K8s.
I think Java 11 enablement is justified just by this fact.



On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 9:09 PM Jim Crowley  wrote:

> Oleg,
>
> That’s a good idea. Support both before we make the full switch over to
> AdoptOpenJDK.
>
> As for your comment on OpenJ9, what did you mean by saying it will be more
> tricky taking historical reports in JIRA?
>
> Is there an issue/discussion open for the move to Java 11? I would love to
> see this happen as well!
>
>
> On Friday, October 25, 2019 at 2:03:38 PM UTC-4, Oleg Nenashev wrote:
>>
>> Sorry for being late to the thread. I am +1 for migrating Jenkins to
>> AdoptOpenJDK by default.
>> We already run significant parts of our infrastructure on AdoptOpenJDK,
>> and so far I have not seen any issues when the HotSpot engine is used.
>> OpenJ9 would be much more tricky taking the historical reports in Jenkins
>> JIRA.
>>
>> We also have an option to ship OpenJDK and AdoptOpenJDK images in
>> parallel and then move when we feel it works well.
>> Bonus points for switching to Java 11 by default at the same time :D
>>
>>
>> BR, Oleg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 23, 2019 at 8:08:42 PM UTC+3, Jim Crowley wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for the information and invite. I'll try to make it tomorrow.
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 5:04:20 PM UTC-4, Mark Waite wrote:

 This seems like a very good topic for discussion in the Jenkins
 Platform Special Interest Group meeting Thursday at 14:00 UTC (
 https://jenkins.io/sigs/platform/#meetings)  .  I've added two items
 to the agenda (
 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bDfUdtjpwoX0HO2PRnfqns_TROBOK8tmP6SgVhubr2Y/edit#
 ).

 The meeting is hosted through Zoom video conferencing and is recorded.
 The meeting URL is posted to the Gitter channel about 10 minutes before the
 meeting starts ( https://gitter.im/jenkinsci/platform-sig).

 On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 2:49 PM Jim Crowley  wrote:

> Irwin,
>
>
> Thanks for the links! One of those issue is one I opened up! Like I
> mentioned to Mark, I spoke with the Adopt team and the additional support
> of more base images are coming in the next PR. The testing framework needs
> to be updated first to support the additional bases.
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 4:30:20 PM UTC-4, Irwin D'Souza wrote:
>>
>> I mentioned this thread on the AdoptOpenJDK slack instance; it looks
>> like there's been talks around increased Docker base image coverage:
>> https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-docker/issues/236 &
>> https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-tests/issues/1109
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 1:47 PM Mark Waite 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, issues with musl vs. glibc were the key reason that I had heard
>>> for OpenJDK to not be willing to support Java 11 on Alpine.
>>>
>>> I don't see any mention of Alpine or Debian on the official images
>>> page at  https://hub.docker.com/_/adoptopenjdk .  There is mention
>>> of Alpine and Debian on the unofficial images page at
>>> https://hub.docker.com/r/adoptopenjdk/openjdk8 .  Is there
>>> somewhere that the difference between official and unofficial 
>>> AdoptOpenJDK
>>> images is described?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 7:30 AM Jim Crowley 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Mark,

 For Alpine are you referring to the issue with glibc vs musl? It
 looks like the AdoptOpenJDK team built Alpine images with glibc 
 install on
 top of the base image. You can look at the Dockefile here,
 https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-docker/tree/master/8/jdk/alpine
 .

 I am loving the AdoptOpenJDK team's support for multiple platforms
 too! I think it is also nice having all the OpenJ9 builds as well as
 Hotspot. Give users more choice is a good thing! I am really hoping 
 for an
 arm port of OpenJ9 down the line!

 Let me know if you have any more questions!

 On Friday, October 18, 2019 at 6:54:08 PM UTC-4, Mark Waite wrote:
>
> Thanks very much for starting the discussion.
>
> I'm interested in evaluating 

Re: Proposal to switch from OpenJDK to AdoptOpenJDK

[Jim Crowley]

 Oleg,

That’s a good idea. Support both before we make the full switch over to 
AdoptOpenJDK. 

As for your comment on OpenJ9, what did you mean by saying it will be more 
tricky taking historical reports in JIRA?

Is there an issue/discussion open for the move to Java 11? I would love to 
see this happen as well!


On Friday, October 25, 2019 at 2:03:38 PM UTC-4, Oleg Nenashev wrote:
>
> Sorry for being late to the thread. I am +1 for migrating Jenkins to 
> AdoptOpenJDK by default.
> We already run significant parts of our infrastructure on AdoptOpenJDK, 
> and so far I have not seen any issues when the HotSpot engine is used.
> OpenJ9 would be much more tricky taking the historical reports in Jenkins 
> JIRA.
>
> We also have an option to ship OpenJDK and AdoptOpenJDK images in parallel 
> and then move when we feel it works well.
> Bonus points for switching to Java 11 by default at the same time :D
>
>
> BR, Oleg
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 23, 2019 at 8:08:42 PM UTC+3, Jim Crowley wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the information and invite. I'll try to make it tomorrow. 
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 5:04:20 PM UTC-4, Mark Waite wrote:
>>>
>>> This seems like a very good topic for discussion in the Jenkins Platform 
>>> Special Interest Group meeting Thursday at 14:00 UTC ( 
>>> https://jenkins.io/sigs/platform/#meetings)  .  I've added two items to 
>>> the agenda (
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bDfUdtjpwoX0HO2PRnfqns_TROBOK8tmP6SgVhubr2Y/edit#
>>> ).  
>>>
>>> The meeting is hosted through Zoom video conferencing and is recorded.  
>>> The meeting URL is posted to the Gitter channel about 10 minutes before the 
>>> meeting starts ( https://gitter.im/jenkinsci/platform-sig).
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 2:49 PM Jim Crowley  wrote:
>>>
 Irwin,

  
 Thanks for the links! One of those issue is one I opened up! Like I 
 mentioned to Mark, I spoke with the Adopt team and the additional support 
 of more base images are coming in the next PR. The testing framework needs 
 to be updated first to support the additional bases. 



 On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 4:30:20 PM UTC-4, Irwin D'Souza wrote:
>
> I mentioned this thread on the AdoptOpenJDK slack instance; it looks 
> like there's been talks around increased Docker base image coverage:  
> https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-docker/issues/236 & 
> https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-tests/issues/1109
>
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 1:47 PM Mark Waite  
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, issues with musl vs. glibc were the key reason that I had heard 
>> for OpenJDK to not be willing to support Java 11 on Alpine.
>>
>> I don't see any mention of Alpine or Debian on the official images 
>> page at  https://hub.docker.com/_/adoptopenjdk .  There is mention 
>> of Alpine and Debian on the unofficial images page at 
>> https://hub.docker.com/r/adoptopenjdk/openjdk8 .  Is there somewhere 
>> that the difference between official and unofficial AdoptOpenJDK images 
>> is 
>> described?
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 7:30 AM Jim Crowley  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Mark,
>>>
>>> For Alpine are you referring to the issue with glibc vs musl? It 
>>> looks like the AdoptOpenJDK team built Alpine images with glibc install 
>>> on 
>>> top of the base image. You can look at the Dockefile here, 
>>> https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-docker/tree/master/8/jdk/alpine
>>> . 
>>>
>>> I am loving the AdoptOpenJDK team's support for multiple platforms 
>>> too! I think it is also nice having all the OpenJ9 builds as well as 
>>> Hotspot. Give users more choice is a good thing! I am really hoping for 
>>> an 
>>> arm port of OpenJ9 down the line!
>>>
>>> Let me know if you have any more questions!
>>>
>>> On Friday, October 18, 2019 at 6:54:08 PM UTC-4, Mark Waite wrote:

 Thanks very much for starting the discussion.

 I'm interested in evaluating the switch from OpenJDK to 
 AdoptOpenJDK.  I've been using JDK 8 and 11 hotspot builds from 
 AdoptOpenJDK for many months with very good results.

 Several of the OpenJDK providers (Red Hat, Amazon, Azul) seem to be 
 limiting their platform support much more than AdoptOpenJDK does.  So 
 long 
 as we can get the platforms we need (Debian, CentOS, UBI), I'm 
 interested 
 in evaluating the change.

 I thought there were specific barriers that prevent Alpine Linux 
 support, though I see that Azul provides an Alpine Linux build for 8, 
 11, 
 and 13.

 On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 2:09 PM Jim Crowley  
 wrote:

> I posted this proposal on GitHub, 
> https://github.com/jenkinsci/docker/issues/893, but also wanted 
> to get the 

Re: Proposal to switch from OpenJDK to AdoptOpenJDK

[Oleg Nenashev]

Sorry for being late to the thread. I am +1 for migrating Jenkins to 
AdoptOpenJDK by default.
We already run significant parts of our infrastructure on AdoptOpenJDK, and 
so far I have not seen any issues when the HotSpot engine is used.
OpenJ9 would be much more tricky taking the historical reports in Jenkins 
JIRA.

We also have an option to ship OpenJDK and AdoptOpenJDK images in parallel 
and then move when we feel it works well.
Bonus points for switching to Java 11 by default at the same time :D


BR, Oleg




On Wednesday, October 23, 2019 at 8:08:42 PM UTC+3, Jim Crowley wrote:
>
> Thanks for the information and invite. I'll try to make it tomorrow. 
>
> On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 5:04:20 PM UTC-4, Mark Waite wrote:
>>
>> This seems like a very good topic for discussion in the Jenkins Platform 
>> Special Interest Group meeting Thursday at 14:00 UTC ( 
>> https://jenkins.io/sigs/platform/#meetings)  .  I've added two items to 
>> the agenda (
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bDfUdtjpwoX0HO2PRnfqns_TROBOK8tmP6SgVhubr2Y/edit#
>> ).  
>>
>> The meeting is hosted through Zoom video conferencing and is recorded.  
>> The meeting URL is posted to the Gitter channel about 10 minutes before the 
>> meeting starts ( https://gitter.im/jenkinsci/platform-sig).
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 2:49 PM Jim Crowley  wrote:
>>
>>> Irwin,
>>>
>>>  
>>> Thanks for the links! One of those issue is one I opened up! Like I 
>>> mentioned to Mark, I spoke with the Adopt team and the additional support 
>>> of more base images are coming in the next PR. The testing framework needs 
>>> to be updated first to support the additional bases. 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 4:30:20 PM UTC-4, Irwin D'Souza wrote:

 I mentioned this thread on the AdoptOpenJDK slack instance; it looks 
 like there's been talks around increased Docker base image coverage:  
 https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-docker/issues/236 & 
 https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-tests/issues/1109

 On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 1:47 PM Mark Waite  wrote:

> Yes, issues with musl vs. glibc were the key reason that I had heard 
> for OpenJDK to not be willing to support Java 11 on Alpine.
>
> I don't see any mention of Alpine or Debian on the official images 
> page at  https://hub.docker.com/_/adoptopenjdk .  There is mention of 
> Alpine and Debian on the unofficial images page at 
> https://hub.docker.com/r/adoptopenjdk/openjdk8 .  Is there somewhere 
> that the difference between official and unofficial AdoptOpenJDK images 
> is 
> described?
>
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 7:30 AM Jim Crowley  wrote:
>
>> Mark,
>>
>> For Alpine are you referring to the issue with glibc vs musl? It 
>> looks like the AdoptOpenJDK team built Alpine images with glibc install 
>> on 
>> top of the base image. You can look at the Dockefile here, 
>> https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-docker/tree/master/8/jdk/alpine
>> . 
>>
>> I am loving the AdoptOpenJDK team's support for multiple platforms 
>> too! I think it is also nice having all the OpenJ9 builds as well as 
>> Hotspot. Give users more choice is a good thing! I am really hoping for 
>> an 
>> arm port of OpenJ9 down the line!
>>
>> Let me know if you have any more questions!
>>
>> On Friday, October 18, 2019 at 6:54:08 PM UTC-4, Mark Waite wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks very much for starting the discussion.
>>>
>>> I'm interested in evaluating the switch from OpenJDK to 
>>> AdoptOpenJDK.  I've been using JDK 8 and 11 hotspot builds from 
>>> AdoptOpenJDK for many months with very good results.
>>>
>>> Several of the OpenJDK providers (Red Hat, Amazon, Azul) seem to be 
>>> limiting their platform support much more than AdoptOpenJDK does.  So 
>>> long 
>>> as we can get the platforms we need (Debian, CentOS, UBI), I'm 
>>> interested 
>>> in evaluating the change.
>>>
>>> I thought there were specific barriers that prevent Alpine Linux 
>>> support, though I see that Azul provides an Alpine Linux build for 8, 
>>> 11, 
>>> and 13.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 2:09 PM Jim Crowley  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I posted this proposal on GitHub, 
 https://github.com/jenkinsci/docker/issues/893, but also wanted to 
 get the feedback of the community here.

  


 As we start to look into supporting multiple architectures, we 
 might want to pivot from using OpenJDK to AdoptOpenJDK. There are 
 couple 
 reasons behind this.

  

 First, it makes our build scripts and Dockerfiles easier to 
 maintain. Currently, in publish-experimental.sh, we have logic that 
 handles 
 pulling from the “right” OpenJDK for a specific architecture. 

Re: Proposal to switch from OpenJDK to AdoptOpenJDK

[Jim Crowley]

Thanks for the information and invite. I'll try to make it tomorrow. 

On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 5:04:20 PM UTC-4, Mark Waite wrote:
>
> This seems like a very good topic for discussion in the Jenkins Platform 
> Special Interest Group meeting Thursday at 14:00 UTC ( 
> https://jenkins.io/sigs/platform/#meetings)  .  I've added two items to 
> the agenda (
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bDfUdtjpwoX0HO2PRnfqns_TROBOK8tmP6SgVhubr2Y/edit#
> ).  
>
> The meeting is hosted through Zoom video conferencing and is recorded.  
> The meeting URL is posted to the Gitter channel about 10 minutes before the 
> meeting starts ( https://gitter.im/jenkinsci/platform-sig).
>
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 2:49 PM Jim Crowley  > wrote:
>
>> Irwin,
>>
>>  
>> Thanks for the links! One of those issue is one I opened up! Like I 
>> mentioned to Mark, I spoke with the Adopt team and the additional support 
>> of more base images are coming in the next PR. The testing framework needs 
>> to be updated first to support the additional bases. 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 4:30:20 PM UTC-4, Irwin D'Souza wrote:
>>>
>>> I mentioned this thread on the AdoptOpenJDK slack instance; it looks 
>>> like there's been talks around increased Docker base image coverage:  
>>> https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-docker/issues/236 & 
>>> https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-tests/issues/1109
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 1:47 PM Mark Waite  wrote:
>>>
 Yes, issues with musl vs. glibc were the key reason that I had heard 
 for OpenJDK to not be willing to support Java 11 on Alpine.

 I don't see any mention of Alpine or Debian on the official images page 
 at  https://hub.docker.com/_/adoptopenjdk .  There is mention of 
 Alpine and Debian on the unofficial images page at 
 https://hub.docker.com/r/adoptopenjdk/openjdk8 .  Is there somewhere 
 that the difference between official and unofficial AdoptOpenJDK images is 
 described?

 On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 7:30 AM Jim Crowley  wrote:

> Mark,
>
> For Alpine are you referring to the issue with glibc vs musl? It looks 
> like the AdoptOpenJDK team built Alpine images with glibc install on top 
> of 
> the base image. You can look at the Dockefile here, 
> https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-docker/tree/master/8/jdk/alpine
> . 
>
> I am loving the AdoptOpenJDK team's support for multiple platforms 
> too! I think it is also nice having all the OpenJ9 builds as well as 
> Hotspot. Give users more choice is a good thing! I am really hoping for 
> an 
> arm port of OpenJ9 down the line!
>
> Let me know if you have any more questions!
>
> On Friday, October 18, 2019 at 6:54:08 PM UTC-4, Mark Waite wrote:
>>
>> Thanks very much for starting the discussion.
>>
>> I'm interested in evaluating the switch from OpenJDK to 
>> AdoptOpenJDK.  I've been using JDK 8 and 11 hotspot builds from 
>> AdoptOpenJDK for many months with very good results.
>>
>> Several of the OpenJDK providers (Red Hat, Amazon, Azul) seem to be 
>> limiting their platform support much more than AdoptOpenJDK does.  So 
>> long 
>> as we can get the platforms we need (Debian, CentOS, UBI), I'm 
>> interested 
>> in evaluating the change.
>>
>> I thought there were specific barriers that prevent Alpine Linux 
>> support, though I see that Azul provides an Alpine Linux build for 8, 
>> 11, 
>> and 13.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 2:09 PM Jim Crowley  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I posted this proposal on GitHub, 
>>> https://github.com/jenkinsci/docker/issues/893, but also wanted to 
>>> get the feedback of the community here.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>> As we start to look into supporting multiple architectures, we might 
>>> want to pivot from using OpenJDK to AdoptOpenJDK. There are couple 
>>> reasons 
>>> behind this.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> First, it makes our build scripts and Dockerfiles easier to 
>>> maintain. Currently, in publish-experimental.sh, we have logic that 
>>> handles 
>>> pulling from the “right” OpenJDK for a specific architecture. This 
>>> could be 
>>> remove as the AdoptOpenJDK Docker image, 
>>> https://hub.docker.com/_/adoptopenjdk, has a manifest file that 
>>> will handle pulling the correct image for the given architecture. 
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> Second, the OpenJDK image’s we are pulling from to build out our 
>>> multi-arch images, s390x/ openjdk:8-jdk, arm32v7/openjdk:8-jdk, etc. 
>>> will 
>>> not be updated anymore. This has to do with OpenJDK not publishing 
>>> “official” binaries for these architectures. More information on this 
>>> issue 
>>> can be found here, 
>>> 

Re: Proposal to switch from OpenJDK to AdoptOpenJDK

[Mark Waite]

This seems like a very good topic for discussion in the Jenkins Platform
Special Interest Group meeting Thursday at 14:00 UTC (
https://jenkins.io/sigs/platform/#meetings)  .  I've added two items to the
agenda (
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bDfUdtjpwoX0HO2PRnfqns_TROBOK8tmP6SgVhubr2Y/edit#
).

The meeting is hosted through Zoom video conferencing and is recorded.  The
meeting URL is posted to the Gitter channel about 10 minutes before the
meeting starts ( https://gitter.im/jenkinsci/platform-sig).

On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 2:49 PM Jim Crowley  wrote:

> Irwin,
>
>
> Thanks for the links! One of those issue is one I opened up! Like I
> mentioned to Mark, I spoke with the Adopt team and the additional support
> of more base images are coming in the next PR. The testing framework needs
> to be updated first to support the additional bases.
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 4:30:20 PM UTC-4, Irwin D'Souza wrote:
>>
>> I mentioned this thread on the AdoptOpenJDK slack instance; it looks like
>> there's been talks around increased Docker base image coverage:
>> https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-docker/issues/236 &
>> https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-tests/issues/1109
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 1:47 PM Mark Waite  wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, issues with musl vs. glibc were the key reason that I had heard for
>>> OpenJDK to not be willing to support Java 11 on Alpine.
>>>
>>> I don't see any mention of Alpine or Debian on the official images page
>>> at  https://hub.docker.com/_/adoptopenjdk .  There is mention of Alpine
>>> and Debian on the unofficial images page at
>>> https://hub.docker.com/r/adoptopenjdk/openjdk8 .  Is there somewhere
>>> that the difference between official and unofficial AdoptOpenJDK images is
>>> described?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 7:30 AM Jim Crowley  wrote:
>>>
 Mark,

 For Alpine are you referring to the issue with glibc vs musl? It looks
 like the AdoptOpenJDK team built Alpine images with glibc install on top of
 the base image. You can look at the Dockefile here,
 https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-docker/tree/master/8/jdk/alpine
 .

 I am loving the AdoptOpenJDK team's support for multiple platforms too!
 I think it is also nice having all the OpenJ9 builds as well as Hotspot.
 Give users more choice is a good thing! I am really hoping for an arm port
 of OpenJ9 down the line!

 Let me know if you have any more questions!

 On Friday, October 18, 2019 at 6:54:08 PM UTC-4, Mark Waite wrote:
>
> Thanks very much for starting the discussion.
>
> I'm interested in evaluating the switch from OpenJDK to AdoptOpenJDK.
> I've been using JDK 8 and 11 hotspot builds from AdoptOpenJDK for many
> months with very good results.
>
> Several of the OpenJDK providers (Red Hat, Amazon, Azul) seem to be
> limiting their platform support much more than AdoptOpenJDK does.  So long
> as we can get the platforms we need (Debian, CentOS, UBI), I'm interested
> in evaluating the change.
>
> I thought there were specific barriers that prevent Alpine Linux
> support, though I see that Azul provides an Alpine Linux build for 8, 11,
> and 13.
>
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 2:09 PM Jim Crowley  wrote:
>
>> I posted this proposal on GitHub,
>> https://github.com/jenkinsci/docker/issues/893, but also wanted to
>> get the feedback of the community here.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> As we start to look into supporting multiple architectures, we might
>> want to pivot from using OpenJDK to AdoptOpenJDK. There are couple 
>> reasons
>> behind this.
>>
>>
>>
>> First, it makes our build scripts and Dockerfiles easier to maintain.
>> Currently, in publish-experimental.sh, we have logic that handles pulling
>> from the “right” OpenJDK for a specific architecture. This could be 
>> remove
>> as the AdoptOpenJDK Docker image,
>> https://hub.docker.com/_/adoptopenjdk, has a manifest file that will
>> handle pulling the correct image for the given architecture.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Second, the OpenJDK image’s we are pulling from to build out our
>> multi-arch images, s390x/ openjdk:8-jdk, arm32v7/openjdk:8-jdk, etc. will
>> not be updated anymore. This has to do with OpenJDK not publishing
>> “official” binaries for these architectures. More information on this 
>> issue
>> can be found here,
>> https://github.com/docker-library/openjdk/issues/364#issuecomment-540821603
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Third, this would pair nicely with the proposal to add OpenJ9,
>> https://github.com/jenkinsci/docker/issues/884. The AdoptOpenJDK
>> image has tags that support OpenJ9, so it should not be to much more work
>> to support this additional tag for our Jenkins images.
>>
>>
>>
>> The only roadblock right now 

Re: Proposal to switch from OpenJDK to AdoptOpenJDK

[Jim Crowley]

 

Irwin,

 
Thanks for the links! One of those issue is one I opened up! Like I 
mentioned to Mark, I spoke with the Adopt team and the additional support 
of more base images are coming in the next PR. The testing framework needs 
to be updated first to support the additional bases. 



On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 4:30:20 PM UTC-4, Irwin D'Souza wrote:
>
> I mentioned this thread on the AdoptOpenJDK slack instance; it looks like 
> there's been talks around increased Docker base image coverage:  
> https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-docker/issues/236 & 
> https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-tests/issues/1109
>
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 1:47 PM Mark Waite  > wrote:
>
>> Yes, issues with musl vs. glibc were the key reason that I had heard for 
>> OpenJDK to not be willing to support Java 11 on Alpine.
>>
>> I don't see any mention of Alpine or Debian on the official images page 
>> at  https://hub.docker.com/_/adoptopenjdk .  There is mention of Alpine 
>> and Debian on the unofficial images page at 
>> https://hub.docker.com/r/adoptopenjdk/openjdk8 .  Is there somewhere 
>> that the difference between official and unofficial AdoptOpenJDK images is 
>> described?
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 7:30 AM Jim Crowley > > wrote:
>>
>>> Mark,
>>>
>>> For Alpine are you referring to the issue with glibc vs musl? It looks 
>>> like the AdoptOpenJDK team built Alpine images with glibc install on top of 
>>> the base image. You can look at the Dockefile here, 
>>> https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-docker/tree/master/8/jdk/alpine
>>> . 
>>>
>>> I am loving the AdoptOpenJDK team's support for multiple platforms too! 
>>> I think it is also nice having all the OpenJ9 builds as well as Hotspot. 
>>> Give users more choice is a good thing! I am really hoping for an arm port 
>>> of OpenJ9 down the line!
>>>
>>> Let me know if you have any more questions!
>>>
>>> On Friday, October 18, 2019 at 6:54:08 PM UTC-4, Mark Waite wrote:

 Thanks very much for starting the discussion.

 I'm interested in evaluating the switch from OpenJDK to AdoptOpenJDK.  
 I've been using JDK 8 and 11 hotspot builds from AdoptOpenJDK for many 
 months with very good results.

 Several of the OpenJDK providers (Red Hat, Amazon, Azul) seem to be 
 limiting their platform support much more than AdoptOpenJDK does.  So long 
 as we can get the platforms we need (Debian, CentOS, UBI), I'm interested 
 in evaluating the change.

 I thought there were specific barriers that prevent Alpine Linux 
 support, though I see that Azul provides an Alpine Linux build for 8, 11, 
 and 13.

 On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 2:09 PM Jim Crowley  wrote:

> I posted this proposal on GitHub, 
> https://github.com/jenkinsci/docker/issues/893, but also wanted to 
> get the feedback of the community here.
>
>  
>
>
> As we start to look into supporting multiple architectures, we might 
> want to pivot from using OpenJDK to AdoptOpenJDK. There are couple 
> reasons 
> behind this.
>
>  
>
> First, it makes our build scripts and Dockerfiles easier to maintain. 
> Currently, in publish-experimental.sh, we have logic that handles pulling 
> from the “right” OpenJDK for a specific architecture. This could be 
> remove 
> as the AdoptOpenJDK Docker image, 
> https://hub.docker.com/_/adoptopenjdk, has a manifest file that will 
> handle pulling the correct image for the given architecture. 
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Second, the OpenJDK image’s we are pulling from to build out our 
> multi-arch images, s390x/ openjdk:8-jdk, arm32v7/openjdk:8-jdk, etc. will 
> not be updated anymore. This has to do with OpenJDK not publishing 
> “official” binaries for these architectures. More information on this 
> issue 
> can be found here, 
> https://github.com/docker-library/openjdk/issues/364#issuecomment-540821603
> .
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Third, this would pair nicely with the proposal to add OpenJ9, 
> https://github.com/jenkinsci/docker/issues/884. The AdoptOpenJDK 
> image has tags that support OpenJ9, so it should not be to much more work 
> to support this additional tag for our Jenkins images.
>
>
>
> The only roadblock right now is the base image/tag support the 
> official AdoptOpenJDK image on DockerHub. Currently, they only support an 
> Ubuntu and Widows Server Core base image. I talked with the Adopt team, 
> Alpine and Debian, Ubi base images are coming down the pipeline. This is 
> aimed at the next PR to the official DockerHub image repository. 
> CentOS/ClefOS are also coming but I do not have an ETA.
>
> Now we could wait for the official image or we could use the 
> unofficial images the Adopt team does produce. Using the unofficial 
> images 
> does provide us with Alpine, Debian, 

Re: Proposal to switch from OpenJDK to AdoptOpenJDK

[Jim Crowley]

 

Mark,

Currently, AdoptOpenJDK does not support Alpine or Debian in the official 
images. But this will be changing in the next PR slotted to get pushed to 
the official Docker library. I talked with the Adopt team last week about 
support. Currently, they need to expand their testing to support the 
additional base images/tags. That is the reason Alpine did not make the cut 
in the last PR, since there was not enough testing done, 
https://github.com/docker-library/official-images/pull/5710#issuecomment-486972430.

The unofficial AdoptOpenJDK images do support Alpine and Debian, like you 
mentioned, but are nightly builds. 

I am not sure if there is an official place for a description between the 
official images vs the unofficial images. What I know is that the official 
images go through additional testing before they are submitted as PR to the 
Docker Library. They do mentioned the “other” builds are not TCK certified 
under the notes area, 
https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-docker#supported-builds-and-build-types
.

 

On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 1:47:56 PM UTC-4, Mark Waite wrote:
>
> Yes, issues with musl vs. glibc were the key reason that I had heard for 
> OpenJDK to not be willing to support Java 11 on Alpine.
>
> I don't see any mention of Alpine or Debian on the official images page 
> at  https://hub.docker.com/_/adoptopenjdk .  There is mention of Alpine 
> and Debian on the unofficial images page at 
> https://hub.docker.com/r/adoptopenjdk/openjdk8 .  Is there somewhere that 
> the difference between official and unofficial AdoptOpenJDK images is 
> described?
>
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 7:30 AM Jim Crowley  > wrote:
>
>> Mark,
>>
>> For Alpine are you referring to the issue with glibc vs musl? It looks 
>> like the AdoptOpenJDK team built Alpine images with glibc install on top of 
>> the base image. You can look at the Dockefile here, 
>> https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-docker/tree/master/8/jdk/alpine. 
>>
>> I am loving the AdoptOpenJDK team's support for multiple platforms too! I 
>> think it is also nice having all the OpenJ9 builds as well as Hotspot. Give 
>> users more choice is a good thing! I am really hoping for an arm port of 
>> OpenJ9 down the line!
>>
>> Let me know if you have any more questions!
>>
>> On Friday, October 18, 2019 at 6:54:08 PM UTC-4, Mark Waite wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks very much for starting the discussion.
>>>
>>> I'm interested in evaluating the switch from OpenJDK to AdoptOpenJDK.  
>>> I've been using JDK 8 and 11 hotspot builds from AdoptOpenJDK for many 
>>> months with very good results.
>>>
>>> Several of the OpenJDK providers (Red Hat, Amazon, Azul) seem to be 
>>> limiting their platform support much more than AdoptOpenJDK does.  So long 
>>> as we can get the platforms we need (Debian, CentOS, UBI), I'm interested 
>>> in evaluating the change.
>>>
>>> I thought there were specific barriers that prevent Alpine Linux 
>>> support, though I see that Azul provides an Alpine Linux build for 8, 11, 
>>> and 13.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 2:09 PM Jim Crowley  wrote:
>>>
 I posted this proposal on GitHub, 
 https://github.com/jenkinsci/docker/issues/893, but also wanted to get 
 the feedback of the community here.

  


 As we start to look into supporting multiple architectures, we might 
 want to pivot from using OpenJDK to AdoptOpenJDK. There are couple reasons 
 behind this.

  

 First, it makes our build scripts and Dockerfiles easier to maintain. 
 Currently, in publish-experimental.sh, we have logic that handles pulling 
 from the “right” OpenJDK for a specific architecture. This could be remove 
 as the AdoptOpenJDK Docker image, https://hub.docker.com/_/adoptopenjdk, 
 has a manifest file that will handle pulling the correct image for the 
 given architecture. 

  

  

 Second, the OpenJDK image’s we are pulling from to build out our 
 multi-arch images, s390x/ openjdk:8-jdk, arm32v7/openjdk:8-jdk, etc. will 
 not be updated anymore. This has to do with OpenJDK not publishing 
 “official” binaries for these architectures. More information on this 
 issue 
 can be found here, 
 https://github.com/docker-library/openjdk/issues/364#issuecomment-540821603
 .

  

  

 Third, this would pair nicely with the proposal to add OpenJ9, 
 https://github.com/jenkinsci/docker/issues/884. The AdoptOpenJDK image 
 has tags that support OpenJ9, so it should not be to much more work to 
 support this additional tag for our Jenkins images.



 The only roadblock right now is the base image/tag support the official 
 AdoptOpenJDK image on DockerHub. Currently, they only support an Ubuntu 
 and 
 Widows Server Core base image. I talked with the Adopt team, Alpine and 
 Debian, Ubi base images are coming down the pipeline. This is aimed at the 

Re: Proposal to switch from OpenJDK to AdoptOpenJDK

[Irwin D'Souza]

I mentioned this thread on the AdoptOpenJDK slack instance; it looks like
there's been talks around increased Docker base image coverage:
https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-docker/issues/236 &
https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-tests/issues/1109

On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 1:47 PM Mark Waite 
wrote:

> Yes, issues with musl vs. glibc were the key reason that I had heard for
> OpenJDK to not be willing to support Java 11 on Alpine.
>
> I don't see any mention of Alpine or Debian on the official images page
> at  https://hub.docker.com/_/adoptopenjdk .  There is mention of Alpine
> and Debian on the unofficial images page at
> https://hub.docker.com/r/adoptopenjdk/openjdk8 .  Is there somewhere that
> the difference between official and unofficial AdoptOpenJDK images is
> described?
>
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 7:30 AM Jim Crowley  wrote:
>
>> Mark,
>>
>> For Alpine are you referring to the issue with glibc vs musl? It looks
>> like the AdoptOpenJDK team built Alpine images with glibc install on top of
>> the base image. You can look at the Dockefile here,
>> https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-docker/tree/master/8/jdk/alpine.
>>
>> I am loving the AdoptOpenJDK team's support for multiple platforms too! I
>> think it is also nice having all the OpenJ9 builds as well as Hotspot. Give
>> users more choice is a good thing! I am really hoping for an arm port of
>> OpenJ9 down the line!
>>
>> Let me know if you have any more questions!
>>
>> On Friday, October 18, 2019 at 6:54:08 PM UTC-4, Mark Waite wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks very much for starting the discussion.
>>>
>>> I'm interested in evaluating the switch from OpenJDK to AdoptOpenJDK.
>>> I've been using JDK 8 and 11 hotspot builds from AdoptOpenJDK for many
>>> months with very good results.
>>>
>>> Several of the OpenJDK providers (Red Hat, Amazon, Azul) seem to be
>>> limiting their platform support much more than AdoptOpenJDK does.  So long
>>> as we can get the platforms we need (Debian, CentOS, UBI), I'm interested
>>> in evaluating the change.
>>>
>>> I thought there were specific barriers that prevent Alpine Linux
>>> support, though I see that Azul provides an Alpine Linux build for 8, 11,
>>> and 13.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 2:09 PM Jim Crowley  wrote:
>>>
 I posted this proposal on GitHub,
 https://github.com/jenkinsci/docker/issues/893, but also wanted to get
 the feedback of the community here.




 As we start to look into supporting multiple architectures, we might
 want to pivot from using OpenJDK to AdoptOpenJDK. There are couple reasons
 behind this.



 First, it makes our build scripts and Dockerfiles easier to maintain.
 Currently, in publish-experimental.sh, we have logic that handles pulling
 from the “right” OpenJDK for a specific architecture. This could be remove
 as the AdoptOpenJDK Docker image, https://hub.docker.com/_/adoptopenjdk,
 has a manifest file that will handle pulling the correct image for the
 given architecture.





 Second, the OpenJDK image’s we are pulling from to build out our
 multi-arch images, s390x/ openjdk:8-jdk, arm32v7/openjdk:8-jdk, etc. will
 not be updated anymore. This has to do with OpenJDK not publishing
 “official” binaries for these architectures. More information on this issue
 can be found here,
 https://github.com/docker-library/openjdk/issues/364#issuecomment-540821603
 .





 Third, this would pair nicely with the proposal to add OpenJ9,
 https://github.com/jenkinsci/docker/issues/884. The AdoptOpenJDK image
 has tags that support OpenJ9, so it should not be to much more work to
 support this additional tag for our Jenkins images.



 The only roadblock right now is the base image/tag support the official
 AdoptOpenJDK image on DockerHub. Currently, they only support an Ubuntu and
 Widows Server Core base image. I talked with the Adopt team, Alpine and
 Debian, Ubi base images are coming down the pipeline. This is aimed at the
 next PR to the official DockerHub image repository. CentOS/ClefOS are also
 coming but I do not have an ETA.

 Now we could wait for the official image or we could use the unofficial
 images the Adopt team does produce. Using the unofficial images does
 provide us with Alpine, Debian, etc support quicker. But they will be
 unofficial images, which I know some users do not like to use.


 Either way, I wanted to get community feedback! So please let me know
 what you think of this proposal.

 --
 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 jenkin...@googlegroups.com.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 

Re: Proposal to switch from OpenJDK to AdoptOpenJDK

[Mark Waite]

Yes, issues with musl vs. glibc were the key reason that I had heard for
OpenJDK to not be willing to support Java 11 on Alpine.

I don't see any mention of Alpine or Debian on the official images page at
https://hub.docker.com/_/adoptopenjdk .  There is mention of Alpine and
Debian on the unofficial images page at
https://hub.docker.com/r/adoptopenjdk/openjdk8 .  Is there somewhere that
the difference between official and unofficial AdoptOpenJDK images is
described?

On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 7:30 AM Jim Crowley  wrote:

> Mark,
>
> For Alpine are you referring to the issue with glibc vs musl? It looks
> like the AdoptOpenJDK team built Alpine images with glibc install on top of
> the base image. You can look at the Dockefile here,
> https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-docker/tree/master/8/jdk/alpine.
>
> I am loving the AdoptOpenJDK team's support for multiple platforms too! I
> think it is also nice having all the OpenJ9 builds as well as Hotspot. Give
> users more choice is a good thing! I am really hoping for an arm port of
> OpenJ9 down the line!
>
> Let me know if you have any more questions!
>
> On Friday, October 18, 2019 at 6:54:08 PM UTC-4, Mark Waite wrote:
>>
>> Thanks very much for starting the discussion.
>>
>> I'm interested in evaluating the switch from OpenJDK to AdoptOpenJDK.
>> I've been using JDK 8 and 11 hotspot builds from AdoptOpenJDK for many
>> months with very good results.
>>
>> Several of the OpenJDK providers (Red Hat, Amazon, Azul) seem to be
>> limiting their platform support much more than AdoptOpenJDK does.  So long
>> as we can get the platforms we need (Debian, CentOS, UBI), I'm interested
>> in evaluating the change.
>>
>> I thought there were specific barriers that prevent Alpine Linux support,
>> though I see that Azul provides an Alpine Linux build for 8, 11, and 13.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 2:09 PM Jim Crowley  wrote:
>>
>>> I posted this proposal on GitHub,
>>> https://github.com/jenkinsci/docker/issues/893, but also wanted to get
>>> the feedback of the community here.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As we start to look into supporting multiple architectures, we might
>>> want to pivot from using OpenJDK to AdoptOpenJDK. There are couple reasons
>>> behind this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> First, it makes our build scripts and Dockerfiles easier to maintain.
>>> Currently, in publish-experimental.sh, we have logic that handles pulling
>>> from the “right” OpenJDK for a specific architecture. This could be remove
>>> as the AdoptOpenJDK Docker image, https://hub.docker.com/_/adoptopenjdk,
>>> has a manifest file that will handle pulling the correct image for the
>>> given architecture.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Second, the OpenJDK image’s we are pulling from to build out our
>>> multi-arch images, s390x/ openjdk:8-jdk, arm32v7/openjdk:8-jdk, etc. will
>>> not be updated anymore. This has to do with OpenJDK not publishing
>>> “official” binaries for these architectures. More information on this issue
>>> can be found here,
>>> https://github.com/docker-library/openjdk/issues/364#issuecomment-540821603
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Third, this would pair nicely with the proposal to add OpenJ9,
>>> https://github.com/jenkinsci/docker/issues/884. The AdoptOpenJDK image
>>> has tags that support OpenJ9, so it should not be to much more work to
>>> support this additional tag for our Jenkins images.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The only roadblock right now is the base image/tag support the official
>>> AdoptOpenJDK image on DockerHub. Currently, they only support an Ubuntu and
>>> Widows Server Core base image. I talked with the Adopt team, Alpine and
>>> Debian, Ubi base images are coming down the pipeline. This is aimed at the
>>> next PR to the official DockerHub image repository. CentOS/ClefOS are also
>>> coming but I do not have an ETA.
>>>
>>> Now we could wait for the official image or we could use the unofficial
>>> images the Adopt team does produce. Using the unofficial images does
>>> provide us with Alpine, Debian, etc support quicker. But they will be
>>> unofficial images, which I know some users do not like to use.
>>>
>>>
>>> Either way, I wanted to get community feedback! So please let me know
>>> what you think of this proposal.
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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 jenkin...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/6eb646a8-6835-4720-beca-9afe95fa0ca0%40googlegroups.com
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks!
>> Mark Waite
>>
> --
> 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 

Re: Proposal to switch from OpenJDK to AdoptOpenJDK

[Jim Crowley]

Mark,

For Alpine are you referring to the issue with glibc vs musl? It looks like 
the AdoptOpenJDK team built Alpine images with glibc install on top of the 
base image. You can look at the Dockefile here, 
https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-docker/tree/master/8/jdk/alpine. 

I am loving the AdoptOpenJDK team's support for multiple platforms too! I 
think it is also nice having all the OpenJ9 builds as well as Hotspot. Give 
users more choice is a good thing! I am really hoping for an arm port of 
OpenJ9 down the line!

Let me know if you have any more questions!

On Friday, October 18, 2019 at 6:54:08 PM UTC-4, Mark Waite wrote:
>
> Thanks very much for starting the discussion.
>
> I'm interested in evaluating the switch from OpenJDK to AdoptOpenJDK.  
> I've been using JDK 8 and 11 hotspot builds from AdoptOpenJDK for many 
> months with very good results.
>
> Several of the OpenJDK providers (Red Hat, Amazon, Azul) seem to be 
> limiting their platform support much more than AdoptOpenJDK does.  So long 
> as we can get the platforms we need (Debian, CentOS, UBI), I'm interested 
> in evaluating the change.
>
> I thought there were specific barriers that prevent Alpine Linux support, 
> though I see that Azul provides an Alpine Linux build for 8, 11, and 13.
>
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 2:09 PM Jim Crowley  > wrote:
>
>> I posted this proposal on GitHub, 
>> https://github.com/jenkinsci/docker/issues/893, but also wanted to get 
>> the feedback of the community here.
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> As we start to look into supporting multiple architectures, we might want 
>> to pivot from using OpenJDK to AdoptOpenJDK. There are couple reasons 
>> behind this.
>>
>>  
>>
>> First, it makes our build scripts and Dockerfiles easier to maintain. 
>> Currently, in publish-experimental.sh, we have logic that handles pulling 
>> from the “right” OpenJDK for a specific architecture. This could be remove 
>> as the AdoptOpenJDK Docker image, https://hub.docker.com/_/adoptopenjdk, 
>> has a manifest file that will handle pulling the correct image for the 
>> given architecture. 
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> Second, the OpenJDK image’s we are pulling from to build out our 
>> multi-arch images, s390x/ openjdk:8-jdk, arm32v7/openjdk:8-jdk, etc. will 
>> not be updated anymore. This has to do with OpenJDK not publishing 
>> “official” binaries for these architectures. More information on this issue 
>> can be found here, 
>> https://github.com/docker-library/openjdk/issues/364#issuecomment-540821603
>> .
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> Third, this would pair nicely with the proposal to add OpenJ9, 
>> https://github.com/jenkinsci/docker/issues/884. The AdoptOpenJDK image 
>> has tags that support OpenJ9, so it should not be to much more work to 
>> support this additional tag for our Jenkins images.
>>
>>
>>
>> The only roadblock right now is the base image/tag support the official 
>> AdoptOpenJDK image on DockerHub. Currently, they only support an Ubuntu and 
>> Widows Server Core base image. I talked with the Adopt team, Alpine and 
>> Debian, Ubi base images are coming down the pipeline. This is aimed at the 
>> next PR to the official DockerHub image repository. CentOS/ClefOS are also 
>> coming but I do not have an ETA.
>>
>> Now we could wait for the official image or we could use the unofficial 
>> images the Adopt team does produce. Using the unofficial images does 
>> provide us with Alpine, Debian, etc support quicker. But they will be 
>> unofficial images, which I know some users do not like to use.
>>
>>
>> Either way, I wanted to get community feedback! So please let me know 
>> what you think of this proposal. 
>>
>> -- 
>> 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 jenkin...@googlegroups.com .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/6eb646a8-6835-4720-beca-9afe95fa0ca0%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Thanks!
> Mark Waite
>

-- 
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 jenkinsci-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/c159ed57-6990-4a66-9756-38517e6800f3%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Proposal to switch from OpenJDK to AdoptOpenJDK

[Mark Waite]

Thanks very much for starting the discussion.

I'm interested in evaluating the switch from OpenJDK to AdoptOpenJDK.  I've
been using JDK 8 and 11 hotspot builds from AdoptOpenJDK for many months
with very good results.

Several of the OpenJDK providers (Red Hat, Amazon, Azul) seem to be
limiting their platform support much more than AdoptOpenJDK does.  So long
as we can get the platforms we need (Debian, CentOS, UBI), I'm interested
in evaluating the change.

I thought there were specific barriers that prevent Alpine Linux support,
though I see that Azul provides an Alpine Linux build for 8, 11, and 13.

On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 2:09 PM Jim Crowley  wrote:

> I posted this proposal on GitHub,
> https://github.com/jenkinsci/docker/issues/893, but also wanted to get
> the feedback of the community here.
>
>
>
>
> As we start to look into supporting multiple architectures, we might want
> to pivot from using OpenJDK to AdoptOpenJDK. There are couple reasons
> behind this.
>
>
>
> First, it makes our build scripts and Dockerfiles easier to maintain.
> Currently, in publish-experimental.sh, we have logic that handles pulling
> from the “right” OpenJDK for a specific architecture. This could be remove
> as the AdoptOpenJDK Docker image, https://hub.docker.com/_/adoptopenjdk,
> has a manifest file that will handle pulling the correct image for the
> given architecture.
>
>
>
>
>
> Second, the OpenJDK image’s we are pulling from to build out our
> multi-arch images, s390x/ openjdk:8-jdk, arm32v7/openjdk:8-jdk, etc. will
> not be updated anymore. This has to do with OpenJDK not publishing
> “official” binaries for these architectures. More information on this issue
> can be found here,
> https://github.com/docker-library/openjdk/issues/364#issuecomment-540821603
> .
>
>
>
>
>
> Third, this would pair nicely with the proposal to add OpenJ9,
> https://github.com/jenkinsci/docker/issues/884. The AdoptOpenJDK image
> has tags that support OpenJ9, so it should not be to much more work to
> support this additional tag for our Jenkins images.
>
>
>
> The only roadblock right now is the base image/tag support the official
> AdoptOpenJDK image on DockerHub. Currently, they only support an Ubuntu and
> Widows Server Core base image. I talked with the Adopt team, Alpine and
> Debian, Ubi base images are coming down the pipeline. This is aimed at the
> next PR to the official DockerHub image repository. CentOS/ClefOS are also
> coming but I do not have an ETA.
>
> Now we could wait for the official image or we could use the unofficial
> images the Adopt team does produce. Using the unofficial images does
> provide us with Alpine, Debian, etc support quicker. But they will be
> unofficial images, which I know some users do not like to use.
>
>
> Either way, I wanted to get community feedback! So please let me know what
> you think of this proposal.
>
> --
> 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 jenkinsci-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/6eb646a8-6835-4720-beca-9afe95fa0ca0%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>


-- 
Thanks!
Mark Waite

-- 
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 jenkinsci-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAO49JtGVshvshWpfU2iJbCDRsttOttA9yEF4z3%2Bq7Ve6wYAe6g%40mail.gmail.com.