Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [test-wg] docker container versioning

[Jose Lausuch]

Hi Alec,
Sounds good. We can talk about that during the meeting. Thanks for proposing it.
Jose

-Original Message-
From: Alec Hothan (ahothan) [mailto:ahot...@cisco.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 16:53 PM
To: Jose Lausuch 
Cc: Morgan Richomme ; Mark Beierl 
; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; 
test...@lists.opnfv.org; Fatih Degirmenci 
Subject: Re: [test-wg] docker container versioning

Hi Jose,

I have moved this topic and added a sub-agenda to the July 27 test-wg weekly 
meeting agenda 
(https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/Test+Working+Group+Weekly+Meeting)
It is good that this issue has not caused any big problem yet for container 
owners (likely because none of the artifacts has been widely deployed outside 
of OPNFV labs yet) but I’d like to recommend to address it very quickly. 
Fatih has noted rightly that this is actually a larger scope issue (extending 
to all other artifacts: VM images, doc, rpms). It is good to see the larger 
picture but I’d like to avoid making it too complex and start with container 
images with adoption of simple industry best practice versioning.

Thanks

   Alec




On 7/13/17, 8:43 AM, "Jose Lausuch"  wrote:

Hi Alec,

The versioning is not an urgent matter and it is working well today.  I 
agree it is a topic to be discussed but maybe it is better to wait until 
everyone is back from PTO as it will be difficult to align without the 
participation of the people who are really involved.

- Jose -




> On 13 Jul 2017, at 17:00, Alec Hothan (ahothan)  wrote:
> 
> Jose,
> 
> You should start the discussion at the next infra wg meeting (I’ll be on 
PTO whole of next week). I think if the issue can be raised and acknowledged it 
will already be a good step.
> I will just note that:
> - this has to be a joint work by both infra and project teams
> - perhaps we could use some help from OPNFV members who do 
packaging/versioning for a living ;-) (e.g. Linux distro vendors
> 
> To clarify, I’m willing to help on the container/VM image/docs 
workflow/versioning since my project produces those. Not so much on the other 
artifacts such as RPM (which might be more complex).
> I’m not familiar enough with OPNFV to know who works on what, I was 
hoping to get more active feedback from at least the main/most active OPNFV 
container owners. The current versioning is clearly insufficient and I’d like 
to get the input from projects that have been publishing containers for a while.
> 
> Can anybody describe quickly how specs are usually being 
discussed/redacted by working groups? Email is usually not the best (written) 
format. OpenStack uses etherpads or text files that are reviewed through gerrit.
> 
> Thanks
> 
>  Alec
> 
> 
> On 7/12/17, 11:35 PM, "Jose Lausuch"  wrote:
> 
>Hi,
> 
>Is there time to discuss this during the next infra wg meeting on 
Monday? Although the test projects are the main ones using docker containers, 
we are talking about versioning here, which I believe is topic the Infra team 
should address.
> 
>I also would like to add to the agenda:
>  -  decision on where to host the docker build scripts (common one or 
project´s repo?). It has been proposed but not decided.
> 
>Thanks,
>Jose
> 
> 
> 
>> On 12 Jul 2017, at 20:10, Alec Hothan (ahothan)  
wrote:
>> 
>> July/August is tricky with PTOs.
>> Perhaps we should start the discussion by email on this mailer and 
discuss about it in 2 weeks at the test-wg meeting? 
>> Do you guys usually use a text document reviewed with gerrit to 
discuss/collaborate on a spec? Or any other method? Please let me know and I 
can get a head start on this.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Alec
>> 
>> On 7/12/17, 8:54 AM, "morgan.richo...@orange.com" 
 wrote:
>> 
>>   I will be in PTO too :)
>> 
>>   Unfortunately the weekly meeting was today at 8 UTC (APAC slot)
>>   we will use the slot of tomorrow to organize an ad-hoc meeting with 
>>   Bitergia on result vizualization
>>   not sure we will have 15 minutes for another topic
>> 
>>   It is maybe possible to organize an ad-hoc meeting on this topic after 
>>   the point with Bitergia?
>> 
>>   Do not hesitate to modify directly the agenda at your convenience 
>>   
(https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/Test+Working+Group+Weekly+Meeting)
>> 
>>   /Morgan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>   On 12/07/2017 17:43, Alec Hothan (ahothan) wrote:
>>> Morgan,
>>> 
>>> Unfortunately, I won’t be able to attend next week (on PTO).
>>> Can this be squeezed into 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [test-wg] docker container versioning

[Alec Hothan (ahothan)]

Hi Jose,

I have moved this topic and added a sub-agenda to the July 27 test-wg weekly 
meeting agenda 
(https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/Test+Working+Group+Weekly+Meeting)
It is good that this issue has not caused any big problem yet for container 
owners (likely because none of the artifacts has been widely deployed outside 
of OPNFV labs yet) 
but I’d like to recommend to address it very quickly. 
Fatih has noted rightly that this is actually a larger scope issue (extending 
to all other artifacts: VM images, doc, rpms). It is good to see the larger 
picture but I’d like to avoid making it too complex and start with container 
images with adoption of simple industry best practice versioning.

Thanks

   Alec




On 7/13/17, 8:43 AM, "Jose Lausuch"  wrote:

Hi Alec,

The versioning is not an urgent matter and it is working well today.  I 
agree it is a topic to be discussed but maybe it is better to wait until 
everyone is back from PTO as it will be difficult to align without the 
participation of the people who are really involved.

- Jose -




> On 13 Jul 2017, at 17:00, Alec Hothan (ahothan)  wrote:
> 
> Jose,
> 
> You should start the discussion at the next infra wg meeting (I’ll be on 
PTO whole of next week). I think if the issue can be raised and acknowledged it 
will already be a good step.
> I will just note that:
> - this has to be a joint work by both infra and project teams
> - perhaps we could use some help from OPNFV members who do 
packaging/versioning for a living ;-) (e.g. Linux distro vendors
> 
> To clarify, I’m willing to help on the container/VM image/docs 
workflow/versioning since my project produces those. Not so much on the other 
artifacts such as RPM (which might be more complex).
> I’m not familiar enough with OPNFV to know who works on what, I was 
hoping to get more active feedback from at least the main/most active OPNFV 
container owners. The current versioning is clearly insufficient and I’d like 
to get the input from projects that have been publishing containers for a while.
> 
> Can anybody describe quickly how specs are usually being 
discussed/redacted by working groups? Email is usually not the best (written) 
format. OpenStack uses etherpads or text files that are reviewed through gerrit.
> 
> Thanks
> 
>  Alec
> 
> 
> On 7/12/17, 11:35 PM, "Jose Lausuch"  wrote:
> 
>Hi,
> 
>Is there time to discuss this during the next infra wg meeting on 
Monday? Although the test projects are the main ones using docker containers, 
we are talking about versioning here, which I believe is topic the Infra team 
should address.
> 
>I also would like to add to the agenda:
>  -  decision on where to host the docker build scripts (common one or 
project´s repo?). It has been proposed but not decided.
> 
>Thanks,
>Jose
> 
> 
> 
>> On 12 Jul 2017, at 20:10, Alec Hothan (ahothan)  
wrote:
>> 
>> July/August is tricky with PTOs.
>> Perhaps we should start the discussion by email on this mailer and 
discuss about it in 2 weeks at the test-wg meeting? 
>> Do you guys usually use a text document reviewed with gerrit to 
discuss/collaborate on a spec? Or any other method? Please let me know and I 
can get a head start on this.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Alec
>> 
>> On 7/12/17, 8:54 AM, "morgan.richo...@orange.com" 
 wrote:
>> 
>>   I will be in PTO too :)
>> 
>>   Unfortunately the weekly meeting was today at 8 UTC (APAC slot)
>>   we will use the slot of tomorrow to organize an ad-hoc meeting with 
>>   Bitergia on result vizualization
>>   not sure we will have 15 minutes for another topic
>> 
>>   It is maybe possible to organize an ad-hoc meeting on this topic after 
>>   the point with Bitergia?
>> 
>>   Do not hesitate to modify directly the agenda at your convenience 
>>   
(https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/Test+Working+Group+Weekly+Meeting)
>> 
>>   /Morgan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>   On 12/07/2017 17:43, Alec Hothan (ahothan) wrote:
>>> Morgan,
>>> 
>>> Unfortunately, I won’t be able to attend next week (on PTO).
>>> Can this be squeezed into tomorrow’s meeting (July 13)? We could 
shorten it and follow up with a separate meeting or on email/IRC.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>>  Alec
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 7/12/17, 8:32 AM, "morgan.richo...@orange.com" 
 wrote:
>>> 
>>>topic added for the next meeting (20th of July)
>>>
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/Test+Working+Group+Weekly+Meeting
>>> 
>>>Mark and Jose are already involved in several activities 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [test-wg] docker container versioning

[Jose Lausuch]

Hi Alec,

The versioning is not an urgent matter and it is working well today.  I agree 
it is a topic to be discussed but maybe it is better to wait until everyone is 
back from PTO as it will be difficult to align without the participation of the 
people who are really involved.

- Jose -




> On 13 Jul 2017, at 17:00, Alec Hothan (ahothan)  wrote:
> 
> Jose,
> 
> You should start the discussion at the next infra wg meeting (I’ll be on PTO 
> whole of next week). I think if the issue can be raised and acknowledged it 
> will already be a good step.
> I will just note that:
> - this has to be a joint work by both infra and project teams
> - perhaps we could use some help from OPNFV members who do 
> packaging/versioning for a living ;-) (e.g. Linux distro vendors
> 
> To clarify, I’m willing to help on the container/VM image/docs 
> workflow/versioning since my project produces those. Not so much on the other 
> artifacts such as RPM (which might be more complex).
> I’m not familiar enough with OPNFV to know who works on what, I was hoping to 
> get more active feedback from at least the main/most active OPNFV container 
> owners. The current versioning is clearly insufficient and I’d like to get 
> the input from projects that have been publishing containers for a while.
> 
> Can anybody describe quickly how specs are usually being discussed/redacted 
> by working groups? Email is usually not the best (written) format. OpenStack 
> uses etherpads or text files that are reviewed through gerrit.
> 
> Thanks
> 
>  Alec
> 
> 
> On 7/12/17, 11:35 PM, "Jose Lausuch"  wrote:
> 
>Hi,
> 
>Is there time to discuss this during the next infra wg meeting on Monday? 
> Although the test projects are the main ones using docker containers, we are 
> talking about versioning here, which I believe is topic the Infra team should 
> address.
> 
>I also would like to add to the agenda:
>  -  decision on where to host the docker build scripts (common one or 
> project´s repo?). It has been proposed but not decided.
> 
>Thanks,
>Jose
> 
> 
> 
>> On 12 Jul 2017, at 20:10, Alec Hothan (ahothan)  wrote:
>> 
>> July/August is tricky with PTOs.
>> Perhaps we should start the discussion by email on this mailer and discuss 
>> about it in 2 weeks at the test-wg meeting? 
>> Do you guys usually use a text document reviewed with gerrit to 
>> discuss/collaborate on a spec? Or any other method? Please let me know and I 
>> can get a head start on this.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Alec
>> 
>> On 7/12/17, 8:54 AM, "morgan.richo...@orange.com" 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>   I will be in PTO too :)
>> 
>>   Unfortunately the weekly meeting was today at 8 UTC (APAC slot)
>>   we will use the slot of tomorrow to organize an ad-hoc meeting with 
>>   Bitergia on result vizualization
>>   not sure we will have 15 minutes for another topic
>> 
>>   It is maybe possible to organize an ad-hoc meeting on this topic after 
>>   the point with Bitergia?
>> 
>>   Do not hesitate to modify directly the agenda at your convenience 
>>   (https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/Test+Working+Group+Weekly+Meeting)
>> 
>>   /Morgan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>   On 12/07/2017 17:43, Alec Hothan (ahothan) wrote:
>>> Morgan,
>>> 
>>> Unfortunately, I won’t be able to attend next week (on PTO).
>>> Can this be squeezed into tomorrow’s meeting (July 13)? We could shorten it 
>>> and follow up with a separate meeting or on email/IRC.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>>  Alec
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 7/12/17, 8:32 AM, "morgan.richo...@orange.com" 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>>topic added for the next meeting (20th of July)
>>>https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/Test+Working+Group+Weekly+Meeting
>>> 
>>>Mark and Jose are already involved in several activities dealing with
>>>docker.
>>>Cedric has a good view on this topic.
>>> 
>>>/Morgan
>>> 
>>>On 12/07/2017 17:27, Alec Hothan (ahothan) wrote:
 I’d like to add this topic to the next weekly meeting of the test-wg and 
 would like to know if anybody else from test-wg would be interested to 
 help redact a proposal for enhancing the docker container versioning and 
 build workflow in OPNFV. As I understand this will only concern a subset 
 of test projects for now at least.
 
 To the agenda:
 - Problem statement for those who have not followed the email thread
 - General goals
 - Get feedback from current projects wrt current container versioning 
 scheme, Q
 - Who would like to participate and how to proceed
 We might need about 15’ to go over these points (no question we will need 
 more detailed discussion which can be better done through email or IRC 
 after that meeting).
 
 What would be great is for those concerned project owners to think about 
 how the requirements of their respective project wrt to their 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [test-wg] docker container versioning

[Alec Hothan (ahothan)]

Jose,

You should start the discussion at the next infra wg meeting (I’ll be on PTO 
whole of next week). I think if the issue can be raised and acknowledged it 
will already be a good step.
I will just note that:
- this has to be a joint work by both infra and project teams
- perhaps we could use some help from OPNFV members who do packaging/versioning 
for a living ;-) (e.g. Linux distro vendors

To clarify, I’m willing to help on the container/VM image/docs 
workflow/versioning since my project produces those. Not so much on the other 
artifacts such as RPM (which might be more complex).
I’m not familiar enough with OPNFV to know who works on what, I was hoping to 
get more active feedback from at least the main/most active OPNFV container 
owners. The current versioning is clearly insufficient and I’d like to get the 
input from projects that have been publishing containers for a while.

Can anybody describe quickly how specs are usually being discussed/redacted by 
working groups? Email is usually not the best (written) format. OpenStack uses 
etherpads or text files that are reviewed through gerrit.

Thanks

  Alec


On 7/12/17, 11:35 PM, "Jose Lausuch"  wrote:

Hi,

Is there time to discuss this during the next infra wg meeting on Monday? 
Although the test projects are the main ones using docker containers, we are 
talking about versioning here, which I believe is topic the Infra team should 
address.

I also would like to add to the agenda:
  -  decision on where to host the docker build scripts (common one or 
project´s repo?). It has been proposed but not decided.

Thanks,
Jose

 

> On 12 Jul 2017, at 20:10, Alec Hothan (ahothan)  wrote:
> 
> July/August is tricky with PTOs.
> Perhaps we should start the discussion by email on this mailer and 
discuss about it in 2 weeks at the test-wg meeting? 
> Do you guys usually use a text document reviewed with gerrit to 
discuss/collaborate on a spec? Or any other method? Please let me know and I 
can get a head start on this.
> 
> Thanks
> 
>  Alec
> 
> On 7/12/17, 8:54 AM, "morgan.richo...@orange.com" 
 wrote:
> 
>I will be in PTO too :)
> 
>Unfortunately the weekly meeting was today at 8 UTC (APAC slot)
>we will use the slot of tomorrow to organize an ad-hoc meeting with 
>Bitergia on result vizualization
>not sure we will have 15 minutes for another topic
> 
>It is maybe possible to organize an ad-hoc meeting on this topic after 
>the point with Bitergia?
> 
>Do not hesitate to modify directly the agenda at your convenience 
>
(https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/Test+Working+Group+Weekly+Meeting)
> 
>/Morgan
> 
> 
> 
>On 12/07/2017 17:43, Alec Hothan (ahothan) wrote:
>> Morgan,
>> 
>> Unfortunately, I won’t be able to attend next week (on PTO).
>> Can this be squeezed into tomorrow’s meeting (July 13)? We could shorten 
it and follow up with a separate meeting or on email/IRC.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>>   Alec
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 7/12/17, 8:32 AM, "morgan.richo...@orange.com" 
 wrote:
>> 
>> topic added for the next meeting (20th of July)
>> 
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/Test+Working+Group+Weekly+Meeting
>> 
>> Mark and Jose are already involved in several activities dealing with
>> docker.
>> Cedric has a good view on this topic.
>> 
>> /Morgan
>> 
>> On 12/07/2017 17:27, Alec Hothan (ahothan) wrote:
>>> I’d like to add this topic to the next weekly meeting of the test-wg 
and would like to know if anybody else from test-wg would be interested to help 
redact a proposal for enhancing the docker container versioning and build 
workflow in OPNFV. As I understand this will only concern a subset of test 
projects for now at least.
>>> 
>>> To the agenda:
>>> - Problem statement for those who have not followed the email thread
>>> - General goals
>>> - Get feedback from current projects wrt current container versioning 
scheme, Q
>>> - Who would like to participate and how to proceed
>>> We might need about 15’ to go over these points (no question we will 
need more detailed discussion which can be better done through email or IRC 
after that meeting).
>>> 
>>> What would be great is for those concerned project owners to think 
about how the requirements of their respective project wrt to their container 
versioning:
>>> - How often do you think you need to build your containers
>>> - Any hurdles experienced while building/managing container images
>>> - How do your container images relate to OPNFV releases (e.g. do you 
have a 1 container version per release of do you 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [test-wg] docker container versioning

[Jose Lausuch]

Hi,

Is there time to discuss this during the next infra wg meeting on Monday? 
Although the test projects are the main ones using docker containers, we are 
talking about versioning here, which I believe is topic the Infra team should 
address.

I also would like to add to the agenda:
  -  decision on where to host the docker build scripts (common one or 
project´s repo?). It has been proposed but not decided.

Thanks,
Jose

 

> On 12 Jul 2017, at 20:10, Alec Hothan (ahothan)  wrote:
> 
> July/August is tricky with PTOs.
> Perhaps we should start the discussion by email on this mailer and discuss 
> about it in 2 weeks at the test-wg meeting? 
> Do you guys usually use a text document reviewed with gerrit to 
> discuss/collaborate on a spec? Or any other method? Please let me know and I 
> can get a head start on this.
> 
> Thanks
> 
>  Alec
> 
> On 7/12/17, 8:54 AM, "morgan.richo...@orange.com" 
>  wrote:
> 
>I will be in PTO too :)
> 
>Unfortunately the weekly meeting was today at 8 UTC (APAC slot)
>we will use the slot of tomorrow to organize an ad-hoc meeting with 
>Bitergia on result vizualization
>not sure we will have 15 minutes for another topic
> 
>It is maybe possible to organize an ad-hoc meeting on this topic after 
>the point with Bitergia?
> 
>Do not hesitate to modify directly the agenda at your convenience 
>(https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/Test+Working+Group+Weekly+Meeting)
> 
>/Morgan
> 
> 
> 
>On 12/07/2017 17:43, Alec Hothan (ahothan) wrote:
>> Morgan,
>> 
>> Unfortunately, I won’t be able to attend next week (on PTO).
>> Can this be squeezed into tomorrow’s meeting (July 13)? We could shorten it 
>> and follow up with a separate meeting or on email/IRC.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>>   Alec
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 7/12/17, 8:32 AM, "morgan.richo...@orange.com" 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> topic added for the next meeting (20th of July)
>> https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/Test+Working+Group+Weekly+Meeting
>> 
>> Mark and Jose are already involved in several activities dealing with
>> docker.
>> Cedric has a good view on this topic.
>> 
>> /Morgan
>> 
>> On 12/07/2017 17:27, Alec Hothan (ahothan) wrote:
>>> I’d like to add this topic to the next weekly meeting of the test-wg and 
>>> would like to know if anybody else from test-wg would be interested to help 
>>> redact a proposal for enhancing the docker container versioning and build 
>>> workflow in OPNFV. As I understand this will only concern a subset of test 
>>> projects for now at least.
>>> 
>>> To the agenda:
>>> - Problem statement for those who have not followed the email thread
>>> - General goals
>>> - Get feedback from current projects wrt current container versioning 
>>> scheme, Q
>>> - Who would like to participate and how to proceed
>>> We might need about 15’ to go over these points (no question we will need 
>>> more detailed discussion which can be better done through email or IRC 
>>> after that meeting).
>>> 
>>> What would be great is for those concerned project owners to think about 
>>> how the requirements of their respective project wrt to their container 
>>> versioning:
>>> - How often do you think you need to build your containers
>>> - Any hurdles experienced while building/managing container images
>>> - How do your container images relate to OPNFV releases (e.g. do you have a 
>>> 1 container version per release of do you prefer to have 1 version that 
>>> tackles all supported releases)
>>> - How do you “bundle” your containers to OPNFV releases (or how do your 
>>> users know what version of container to use for a given release)
>>> 
>>> We can also use email to get a head start or for those who cannot attend 
>>> the meeting.
>>> I hope we can get a draft proposal by early August.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>>   Alec
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 7/11/17, 8:29 AM, "Fatih Degirmenci"  wrote:
>>> 
>>> +1 to "Can we work on a proposal and get every project that deals with 
>>> containers involved?"
>>> 
>>> It is mainly test projects who use containers so I again let testing 
>>> community to take the lead and point you to where/how the conversation 
>>> started.
>>> 
>>> We can then try to generalize it later on.
>>> 
>>> /Fatih
>>> 
>>> On 11 Jul 2017, at 17:16, Alec Hothan (ahothan)  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Can we work on a proposal and get every project that deals with 
>>> containers involved?
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> test-wg mailing list
>>> test...@lists.opnfv.org
>>> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/test-wg
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Morgan Richomme
>> Orange/ IMT/ OLN/ CNC/ NCA/ SINA
>> 
>> Network architect for innovative services
>> Future of the Network community member
>> Open source Orange community manager
>> 
>> 
>> tel. +33 (0) 296 072 106
>> 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [test-wg] docker container versioning

[Alec Hothan (ahothan)]

July/August is tricky with PTOs.
Perhaps we should start the discussion by email on this mailer and discuss 
about it in 2 weeks at the test-wg meeting? 
Do you guys usually use a text document reviewed with gerrit to 
discuss/collaborate on a spec? Or any other method? Please let me know and I 
can get a head start on this.

Thanks

  Alec

On 7/12/17, 8:54 AM, "morgan.richo...@orange.com"  
wrote:

I will be in PTO too :)

Unfortunately the weekly meeting was today at 8 UTC (APAC slot)
we will use the slot of tomorrow to organize an ad-hoc meeting with 
Bitergia on result vizualization
not sure we will have 15 minutes for another topic

It is maybe possible to organize an ad-hoc meeting on this topic after 
the point with Bitergia?

Do not hesitate to modify directly the agenda at your convenience 
(https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/Test+Working+Group+Weekly+Meeting)

/Morgan



On 12/07/2017 17:43, Alec Hothan (ahothan) wrote:
> Morgan,
>
> Unfortunately, I won’t be able to attend next week (on PTO).
> Can this be squeezed into tomorrow’s meeting (July 13)? We could shorten 
it and follow up with a separate meeting or on email/IRC.
>
> Thanks
>
>Alec
>
>
>
> On 7/12/17, 8:32 AM, "morgan.richo...@orange.com" 
 wrote:
>
>  topic added for the next meeting (20th of July)
>  
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/Test+Working+Group+Weekly+Meeting
>  
>  Mark and Jose are already involved in several activities dealing with
>  docker.
>  Cedric has a good view on this topic.
>  
>  /Morgan
>  
>  On 12/07/2017 17:27, Alec Hothan (ahothan) wrote:
>  > I’d like to add this topic to the next weekly meeting of the 
test-wg and would like to know if anybody else from test-wg would be interested 
to help redact a proposal for enhancing the docker container versioning and 
build workflow in OPNFV. As I understand this will only concern a subset of 
test projects for now at least.
>  >
>  > To the agenda:
>  > - Problem statement for those who have not followed the email 
thread
>  > - General goals
>  > - Get feedback from current projects wrt current container 
versioning scheme, Q
>  > - Who would like to participate and how to proceed
>  > We might need about 15’ to go over these points (no question we 
will need more detailed discussion which can be better done through email or 
IRC after that meeting).
>  >
>  > What would be great is for those concerned project owners to think 
about how the requirements of their respective project wrt to their container 
versioning:
>  > - How often do you think you need to build your containers
>  > - Any hurdles experienced while building/managing container images
>  > - How do your container images relate to OPNFV releases (e.g. do 
you have a 1 container version per release of do you prefer to have 1 version 
that tackles all supported releases)
>  > - How do you “bundle” your containers to OPNFV releases (or how do 
your users know what version of container to use for a given release)
>  >
>  > We can also use email to get a head start or for those who cannot 
attend the meeting.
>  > I hope we can get a draft proposal by early August.
>  >
>  > Thanks
>  >
>  >Alec
>  >
>  >
>  > On 7/11/17, 8:29 AM, "Fatih Degirmenci"  wrote:
>  >
>  >  +1 to "Can we work on a proposal and get every project that 
deals with containers involved?"
>  >
>  >  It is mainly test projects who use containers so I again let 
testing community to take the lead and point you to where/how the conversation 
started.
>  >
>  >  We can then try to generalize it later on.
>  >
>  >  /Fatih
>  >
>  >  On 11 Jul 2017, at 17:16, Alec Hothan (ahothan) 
 wrote:
>  >
>  >  Can we work on a proposal and get every project that deals 
with containers involved?
>  >
>  > ___
>  > test-wg mailing list
>  > test...@lists.opnfv.org
>  > https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/test-wg
>  
>  
>  --
>  Morgan Richomme
>  Orange/ IMT/ OLN/ CNC/ NCA/ SINA
>  
>  Network architect for innovative services
>  Future of the Network community member
>  Open source Orange community manager
>  
>  
>  tel. +33 (0) 296 072 106
>  mob. +33 (0) 637 753 326
>  morgan.richo...@orange.com
>  
>  
>  

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [test-wg] docker container versioning

[morgan.richomme]

I will be in PTO too :)

Unfortunately the weekly meeting was today at 8 UTC (APAC slot)
we will use the slot of tomorrow to organize an ad-hoc meeting with 
Bitergia on result vizualization

not sure we will have 15 minutes for another topic

It is maybe possible to organize an ad-hoc meeting on this topic after 
the point with Bitergia?


Do not hesitate to modify directly the agenda at your convenience 
(https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/Test+Working+Group+Weekly+Meeting)


/Morgan



On 12/07/2017 17:43, Alec Hothan (ahothan) wrote:

Morgan,

Unfortunately, I won’t be able to attend next week (on PTO).
Can this be squeezed into tomorrow’s meeting (July 13)? We could shorten it and 
follow up with a separate meeting or on email/IRC.

Thanks

   Alec



On 7/12/17, 8:32 AM, "morgan.richo...@orange.com"  
wrote:

 topic added for the next meeting (20th of July)
 https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/Test+Working+Group+Weekly+Meeting
 
 Mark and Jose are already involved in several activities dealing with

 docker.
 Cedric has a good view on this topic.
 
 /Morgan
 
 On 12/07/2017 17:27, Alec Hothan (ahothan) wrote:

 > I’d like to add this topic to the next weekly meeting of the test-wg and 
would like to know if anybody else from test-wg would be interested to help redact 
a proposal for enhancing the docker container versioning and build workflow in 
OPNFV. As I understand this will only concern a subset of test projects for now at 
least.
 >
 > To the agenda:
 > - Problem statement for those who have not followed the email thread
 > - General goals
 > - Get feedback from current projects wrt current container versioning 
scheme, Q
 > - Who would like to participate and how to proceed
 > We might need about 15’ to go over these points (no question we will 
need more detailed discussion which can be better done through email or IRC after 
that meeting).
 >
 > What would be great is for those concerned project owners to think about 
how the requirements of their respective project wrt to their container versioning:
 > - How often do you think you need to build your containers
 > - Any hurdles experienced while building/managing container images
 > - How do your container images relate to OPNFV releases (e.g. do you 
have a 1 container version per release of do you prefer to have 1 version that 
tackles all supported releases)
 > - How do you “bundle” your containers to OPNFV releases (or how do your 
users know what version of container to use for a given release)
 >
 > We can also use email to get a head start or for those who cannot attend 
the meeting.
 > I hope we can get a draft proposal by early August.
 >
 > Thanks
 >
 >Alec
 >
 >
 > On 7/11/17, 8:29 AM, "Fatih Degirmenci"  wrote:
 >
 >  +1 to "Can we work on a proposal and get every project that deals with 
containers involved?"
 >
 >  It is mainly test projects who use containers so I again let 
testing community to take the lead and point you to where/how the conversation 
started.
 >
 >  We can then try to generalize it later on.
 >
 >  /Fatih
 >
 >  On 11 Jul 2017, at 17:16, Alec Hothan (ahothan)  
wrote:
 >
 >  Can we work on a proposal and get every project that deals with 
containers involved?
 >
 > ___
 > test-wg mailing list
 > test...@lists.opnfv.org
 > https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/test-wg
 
 
 --

 Morgan Richomme
 Orange/ IMT/ OLN/ CNC/ NCA/ SINA
 
 Network architect for innovative services

 Future of the Network community member
 Open source Orange community manager
 
 
 tel. +33 (0) 296 072 106

 mob. +33 (0) 637 753 326
 morgan.richo...@orange.com
 
 
 _
 
 Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

 pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez 
recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
 a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
 Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.
 
 This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

 they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
 If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and 
delete this message and its attachments.
 As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [test-wg] docker container versioning

[Alec Hothan (ahothan)]

Morgan,

Unfortunately, I won’t be able to attend next week (on PTO).
Can this be squeezed into tomorrow’s meeting (July 13)? We could shorten it and 
follow up with a separate meeting or on email/IRC.

Thanks

  Alec



On 7/12/17, 8:32 AM, "morgan.richo...@orange.com"  
wrote:

topic added for the next meeting (20th of July)
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/Test+Working+Group+Weekly+Meeting

Mark and Jose are already involved in several activities dealing with 
docker.
Cedric has a good view on this topic.

/Morgan

On 12/07/2017 17:27, Alec Hothan (ahothan) wrote:
> I’d like to add this topic to the next weekly meeting of the test-wg and 
would like to know if anybody else from test-wg would be interested to help 
redact a proposal for enhancing the docker container versioning and build 
workflow in OPNFV. As I understand this will only concern a subset of test 
projects for now at least.
>
> To the agenda:
> - Problem statement for those who have not followed the email thread
> - General goals
> - Get feedback from current projects wrt current container versioning 
scheme, Q
> - Who would like to participate and how to proceed
> We might need about 15’ to go over these points (no question we will need 
more detailed discussion which can be better done through email or IRC after 
that meeting).
>
> What would be great is for those concerned project owners to think about 
how the requirements of their respective project wrt to their container 
versioning:
> - How often do you think you need to build your containers
> - Any hurdles experienced while building/managing container images
> - How do your container images relate to OPNFV releases (e.g. do you have 
a 1 container version per release of do you prefer to have 1 version that 
tackles all supported releases)
> - How do you “bundle” your containers to OPNFV releases (or how do your 
users know what version of container to use for a given release)
>
> We can also use email to get a head start or for those who cannot attend 
the meeting.
> I hope we can get a draft proposal by early August.
>
> Thanks
>
>Alec
>
>
> On 7/11/17, 8:29 AM, "Fatih Degirmenci"  wrote:
>
>  +1 to "Can we work on a proposal and get every project that deals 
with containers involved?"
>  
>  It is mainly test projects who use containers so I again let testing 
community to take the lead and point you to where/how the conversation started.
>  
>  We can then try to generalize it later on.
>  
>  /Fatih
>  
>  On 11 Jul 2017, at 17:16, Alec Hothan (ahothan)  
wrote:
>  
>  Can we work on a proposal and get every project that deals with 
containers involved?
>
> ___
> test-wg mailing list
> test...@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/test-wg


-- 
Morgan Richomme
Orange/ IMT/ OLN/ CNC/ NCA/ SINA

Network architect for innovative services
Future of the Network community member
Open source Orange community manager


tel. +33 (0) 296 072 106
mob. +33 (0) 637 753 326
morgan.richo...@orange.com



_

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu 
ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and 
delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.



___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [test-wg] docker container versioning

[morgan.richomme]

topic added for the next meeting (20th of July)
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/Test+Working+Group+Weekly+Meeting

Mark and Jose are already involved in several activities dealing with 
docker.

Cedric has a good view on this topic.

/Morgan

On 12/07/2017 17:27, Alec Hothan (ahothan) wrote:

I’d like to add this topic to the next weekly meeting of the test-wg and would 
like to know if anybody else from test-wg would be interested to help redact a 
proposal for enhancing the docker container versioning and build workflow in 
OPNFV. As I understand this will only concern a subset of test projects for now 
at least.

To the agenda:
- Problem statement for those who have not followed the email thread
- General goals
- Get feedback from current projects wrt current container versioning scheme, 
Q
- Who would like to participate and how to proceed
We might need about 15’ to go over these points (no question we will need more 
detailed discussion which can be better done through email or IRC after that 
meeting).

What would be great is for those concerned project owners to think about how 
the requirements of their respective project wrt to their container versioning:
- How often do you think you need to build your containers
- Any hurdles experienced while building/managing container images
- How do your container images relate to OPNFV releases (e.g. do you have a 1 
container version per release of do you prefer to have 1 version that tackles 
all supported releases)
- How do you “bundle” your containers to OPNFV releases (or how do your users 
know what version of container to use for a given release)

We can also use email to get a head start or for those who cannot attend the 
meeting.
I hope we can get a draft proposal by early August.

Thanks

   Alec


On 7/11/17, 8:29 AM, "Fatih Degirmenci"  wrote:

 +1 to "Can we work on a proposal and get every project that deals with 
containers involved?"
 
 It is mainly test projects who use containers so I again let testing community to take the lead and point you to where/how the conversation started.
 
 We can then try to generalize it later on.
 
 /Fatih
 
 On 11 Jul 2017, at 17:16, Alec Hothan (ahothan)  wrote:
 
 Can we work on a proposal and get every project that deals with containers involved?


___
test-wg mailing list
test...@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/test-wg



--
Morgan Richomme
Orange/ IMT/ OLN/ CNC/ NCA/ SINA

Network architect for innovative services
Future of the Network community member
Open source Orange community manager


tel. +33 (0) 296 072 106
mob. +33 (0) 637 753 326
morgan.richo...@orange.com


_

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce 
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [test-wg] docker container versioning

[Alec Hothan (ahothan)]

I’d like to add this topic to the next weekly meeting of the test-wg and would 
like to know if anybody else from test-wg would be interested to help redact a 
proposal for enhancing the docker container versioning and build workflow in 
OPNFV. As I understand this will only concern a subset of test projects for now 
at least.

To the agenda:
- Problem statement for those who have not followed the email thread
- General goals
- Get feedback from current projects wrt current container versioning scheme, 
Q
- Who would like to participate and how to proceed
We might need about 15’ to go over these points (no question we will need more 
detailed discussion which can be better done through email or IRC after that 
meeting).

What would be great is for those concerned project owners to think about how 
the requirements of their respective project wrt to their container versioning:
- How often do you think you need to build your containers
- Any hurdles experienced while building/managing container images
- How do your container images relate to OPNFV releases (e.g. do you have a 1 
container version per release of do you prefer to have 1 version that tackles 
all supported releases)
- How do you “bundle” your containers to OPNFV releases (or how do your users 
know what version of container to use for a given release)

We can also use email to get a head start or for those who cannot attend the 
meeting.
I hope we can get a draft proposal by early August.

Thanks

  Alec


On 7/11/17, 8:29 AM, "Fatih Degirmenci"  wrote:

+1 to "Can we work on a proposal and get every project that deals with 
containers involved?"

It is mainly test projects who use containers so I again let testing 
community to take the lead and point you to where/how the conversation started.

We can then try to generalize it later on.

/Fatih

On 11 Jul 2017, at 17:16, Alec Hothan (ahothan)  wrote:

Can we work on a proposal and get every project that deals with containers 
involved?

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [test-wg] docker container versioning

[Fatih Degirmenci]

+1 to "Can we work on a proposal and get every project that deals with 
containers involved?"

It is mainly test projects who use containers so I again let testing community 
to take the lead and point you to where/how the conversation started.

We can then try to generalize it later on.

/Fatih

On 11 Jul 2017, at 17:16, Alec Hothan (ahothan)  wrote:

Can we work on a proposal and get every project that deals with containers 
involved?
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [test-wg] docker container versioning

[Alec Hothan (ahothan)]

Hi Fatih,


From: Fatih Degirmenci 
Date: Monday, July 10, 2017 at 2:04 PM
To: "Alec Hothan (ahothan)" , "Beierl, Mark" 

Cc: "opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org" , 
"test...@lists.opnfv.org" 
Subject: Re: [test-wg] docker container versioning

Hi Alec,

Your understanding about the docker image tags seem correct to me (latest vs 
stable) but I let someone from test projects answer to that.

[Alec] I’m still a bit confused after reading Jose’s email

When it comes to artifact versioning in general; you are asking really good 
questions. Let me go back in time and summarize what plans we had (ie what we 
haven't been able to implement fully) with regards to it.

The questions you ask about tagging docker images is not limited to them. We 
have similar issues with other artifacts we produce (rpms, isos , etc.), maybe 
not on the same level as the docker images but we have them.

[Alec]
Containers generally have a much faster cycle than rpms and isos, it is not 
unreasonable to see multiple versions of a container being created for any 
given opnfv release. But you’re right that tracking the version is needed for 
all artifacts.


In order to achieve some level of traceability and reproducibility, we record 
the metadata for the artifacts (rpms, isos, etc.) we build so we can go back to 
source and find out exact version (commit) that was used for building the 
artifact in question. [1]
We also had plans to tag corresponding commits in our git repos but we haven't 
managed to fix that. [2] This includes docker images as well.

[Alec]
It is good that it is at least tracked. I’m a bit surprised that the community 
has not up voted this issue because it is a pretty serious one.


Apart from our own (OPNFV) repos, some of the artifacts we build include stuff 
from other sources, making it tricky to achieve full traceability and making 
the traceability even more important.
We had many discussions about how to capture this information in order to 
ensure we can go back to a specific commit in any upstream project we consume. 
(locking/pinning versions etc.)
But since we have different ways of doing things and different practices 
employed by different projects, this hasn't happened either. (I can talk about 
this for hours...)

[Alec]
It is indeed a pretty complex problem but can we perhaps limit the discussion 
to containers first? That will limit the scope and hopefully allow us to get 
containers in a good shape and perhaps we could leverage that work for the rest 
of the artifacts.

By the way, I am not saying we totally failed as some projects take care of 
this themselves but as OPNFV, we do not have common practice, except metadata 
files for ISOs and the docker tags that do not help at all.

Long story short, this can be achieved in different ways like you exemplified; 
if a tag is applied to a repo, we trigger a build automatically and store & tag 
produced artifact in artifact repo and/or if we are building periodically, we 
apply the tag to git repo once the artifact is built successfully.

[Alec]
Can we work on a proposal and get every project that deals with containers 
involved? Do you usually work on a text file reviewed in gerrit?
We would need to address the following:

  *   Opnfv containers versioning strategy (how to version, workflows and 
relationship with releases)
  *   How to produce and publish new container images
  *   Support for multiple images per project (although this can be addressed 
separately in the short term)

Thanks

  /Alec


No matter which way we go, we need to fix this so thank you for questioning 
things, hopefully resulting in improvements starting with test projects.

[1] http://artifacts.opnfv.org/apex/opnfv-2017-07-05.properties
[2] https://jira.opnfv.org/browse/RELENG-77

/Fatih

From: "Alec Hothan (ahothan)" 
Date: Monday, 10 July 2017 at 21:45
To: Fatih Degirmenci , "Beierl, Mark" 

Cc: "opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org" , 
"test...@lists.opnfv.org" 
Subject: [test-wg] docker container versioning


[ cc test-wg - was [opnfv-tech-discuss] Multiple docker containers from one 
project) ]


Hi Fatih

It is generally not easy to deal with container tags that do not include any 
information that links easily to a git repo commit (e.g. a “version” number 
increased by 1 for each build does not tell which git commit was used – might 
be one reason why this was removed)

For example, if we look at the published yardstick containers as of today:

“latest” is generally used to refer to the latest on master at the time of the 
build (so whoever does not care about the exact version and just wants the 
bleeding edge will pick “latest”) – apparently this container is not linked to 
any particular OPNFV release? 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [test-wg] docker container versioning

[Brattain, Ross B]

yardstick danube.3.0 was a mistaken premature tag before the release was 
postponed,  we can't delete git tags, so new git tag will be danube.3.1 with 
docker tag danube.3.1

docker danube.3.0 image was custom build for Dovetail.   We have projects 
consuming other project's dockers, so there are dependencies that way.

We are also going to start git cloning storperf inside yardstick docker 
container, so we will have to track two versions, yardstick git tag and 
storperf git tag.


From: test-wg-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:test-wg-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] 
On Behalf Of Fatih Degirmenci
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 2:04 PM
To: Alec Hothan (ahothan) ; Beierl, Mark 

Cc: test...@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [test-wg] docker container versioning

Hi Alec,

Your understanding about the docker image tags seem correct to me (latest vs 
stable) but I let someone from test projects answer to that.

When it comes to artifact versioning in general; you are asking really good 
questions. Let me go back in time and summarize what plans we had (ie what we 
haven't been able to implement fully) with regards to it.

The questions you ask about tagging docker images is not limited to them. We 
have similar issues with other artifacts we produce (rpms, isos , etc.), maybe 
not on the same level as the docker images but we have them.

In order to achieve some level of traceability and reproducibility, we record 
the metadata for the artifacts (rpms, isos, etc.) we build so we can go back to 
source and find out exact version (commit) that was used for building the 
artifact in question. [1]
We also had plans to tag corresponding commits in our git repos but we haven't 
managed to fix that. [2] This includes docker images as well.

Apart from our own (OPNFV) repos, some of the artifacts we build include stuff 
from other sources, making it tricky to achieve full traceability and making 
the traceability even more important.
We had many discussions about how to capture this information in order to 
ensure we can go back to a specific commit in any upstream project we consume. 
(locking/pinning versions etc.)
But since we have different ways of doing things and different practices 
employed by different projects, this hasn't happened either. (I can talk about 
this for hours...)

By the way, I am not saying we totally failed as some projects take care of 
this themselves but as OPNFV, we do not have common practice, except metadata 
files for ISOs and the docker tags that do not help at all.

Long story short, this can be achieved in different ways like you exemplified; 
if a tag is applied to a repo, we trigger a build automatically and store & tag 
produced artifact in artifact repo and/or if we are building periodically, we 
apply the tag to git repo once the artifact is built successfully.

No matter which way we go, we need to fix this so thank you for questioning 
things, hopefully resulting in improvements starting with test projects.

[1] http://artifacts.opnfv.org/apex/opnfv-2017-07-05.properties
[2] https://jira.opnfv.org/browse/RELENG-77

/Fatih

From: "Alec Hothan (ahothan)" >
Date: Monday, 10 July 2017 at 21:45
To: Fatih Degirmenci 
>, "Beierl, 
Mark" >
Cc: 
"opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org" 
>,
 "test...@lists.opnfv.org" 
>
Subject: [test-wg] docker container versioning


[ cc test-wg - was [opnfv-tech-discuss] Multiple docker containers from one 
project) ]


Hi Fatih

It is generally not easy to deal with container tags that do not include any 
information that links easily to a git repo commit (e.g. a “version” number 
increased by 1 for each build does not tell which git commit was used – might 
be one reason why this was removed)

For example, if we look at the published yardstick containers as of today:

“latest” is generally used to refer to the latest on master at the time of the 
build (so whoever does not care about the exact version and just wants the 
bleeding edge will pick “latest”) – apparently this container is not linked to 
any particular OPNFV release? Or is it implicitly linked to the current latest 
release (Euphrates)?

“stable” is supposed to be the latest stable version (presumably more stable 
than latest), in the current script it is not clear in what conditions a build 
is triggered with BRANCH not master and RELEASE_VERSION is not set (does the 
project owner controls that?) Apparently unrelated to any particular OPNFV 
release as well although would have thought a “danube.3.0-stable” would make 
sense.

“danube.3.0”: related to Danube 3.0 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [test-wg] docker container versioning

[Fatih Degirmenci]

Hi Alec,

Your understanding about the docker image tags seem correct to me (latest vs 
stable) but I let someone from test projects answer to that.

When it comes to artifact versioning in general; you are asking really good 
questions. Let me go back in time and summarize what plans we had (ie what we 
haven't been able to implement fully) with regards to it.

The questions you ask about tagging docker images is not limited to them. We 
have similar issues with other artifacts we produce (rpms, isos , etc.), maybe 
not on the same level as the docker images but we have them.
In order to achieve some level of traceability and reproducibility, we record 
the metadata for the artifacts (rpms, isos, etc.) we build so we can go back to 
source and find out exact version (commit) that was used for building the 
artifact in question. [1]
We also had plans to tag corresponding commits in our git repos but we haven't 
managed to fix that. [2] This includes docker images as well.

Apart from our own (OPNFV) repos, some of the artifacts we build include stuff 
from other sources, making it tricky to achieve full traceability and making 
the traceability even more important.
We had many discussions about how to capture this information in order to 
ensure we can go back to a specific commit in any upstream project we consume. 
(locking/pinning versions etc.)
But since we have different ways of doing things and different practices 
employed by different projects, this hasn't happened either. (I can talk about 
this for hours...)

By the way, I am not saying we totally failed as some projects take care of 
this themselves but as OPNFV, we do not have common practice, except metadata 
files for ISOs and the docker tags that do not help at all.

Long story short, this can be achieved in different ways like you exemplified; 
if a tag is applied to a repo, we trigger a build automatically and store & tag 
produced artifact in artifact repo and/or if we are building periodically, we 
apply the tag to git repo once the artifact is built successfully.

No matter which way we go, we need to fix this so thank you for questioning 
things, hopefully resulting in improvements starting with test projects.

[1] http://artifacts.opnfv.org/apex/opnfv-2017-07-05.properties
[2] https://jira.opnfv.org/browse/RELENG-77

/Fatih

From: "Alec Hothan (ahothan)" 
Date: Monday, 10 July 2017 at 21:45
To: Fatih Degirmenci , "Beierl, Mark" 

Cc: "opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org" , 
"test...@lists.opnfv.org" 
Subject: [test-wg] docker container versioning


[ cc test-wg - was [opnfv-tech-discuss] Multiple docker containers from one 
project) ]


Hi Fatih

It is generally not easy to deal with container tags that do not include any 
information that links easily to a git repo commit (e.g. a “version” number 
increased by 1 for each build does not tell which git commit was used – might 
be one reason why this was removed)

For example, if we look at the published yardstick containers as of today:

“latest” is generally used to refer to the latest on master at the time of the 
build (so whoever does not care about the exact version and just wants the 
bleeding edge will pick “latest”) – apparently this container is not linked to 
any particular OPNFV release? Or is it implicitly linked to the current latest 
release (Euphrates)?

“stable” is supposed to be the latest stable version (presumably more stable 
than latest), in the current script it is not clear in what conditions a build 
is triggered with BRANCH not master and RELEASE_VERSION is not set (does the 
project owner controls that?) Apparently unrelated to any particular OPNFV 
release as well although would have thought a “danube.3.0-stable” would make 
sense.

“danube.3.0”: related to Danube 3.0 but does not indicate what yardstick repo 
tag it was built from. The git repo has a git tag with the same name 
“danube.3.0”, how are those 2 tags correlated? For example, there is no 
matching git tag for container “colorado.0.15” and there is no matching 
container for git tag “colorado.3.0”.
Also not clear what yardstick project will do to publish a newer version of the 
yardstick container for Danube 3.0?

Project owners should be able to publish finer grain versions of containers in 
a faster pace than the overall OPNFV release (e.g. as frequent as more than 
once a day) and these need to be tracked properly.

The best practice – as seen by most popular container images – is to tag the 
container using a version string that reflects the container source code 
version.
Translating to a project workflow, what is typical:

  *   The project repo uses git tags to version the source code (e.g. “3.2.5”) 
independently of the OPNFV release versioning (e.g. “Danube 3.0”). Such 
versioning should be left at the discretion of the project owners (e.g. Many 
OpenStack 

[opnfv-tech-discuss] [test-wg] docker container versioning

[Alec Hothan (ahothan)]

[ cc test-wg - was [opnfv-tech-discuss] Multiple docker containers from one 
project) ]


Hi Fatih

It is generally not easy to deal with container tags that do not include any 
information that links easily to a git repo commit (e.g. a “version” number 
increased by 1 for each build does not tell which git commit was used – might 
be one reason why this was removed)

For example, if we look at the published yardstick containers as of today:

“latest” is generally used to refer to the latest on master at the time of the 
build (so whoever does not care about the exact version and just wants the 
bleeding edge will pick “latest”) – apparently this container is not linked to 
any particular OPNFV release? Or is it implicitly linked to the current latest 
release (Euphrates)?

“stable” is supposed to be the latest stable version (presumably more stable 
than latest), in the current script it is not clear in what conditions a build 
is triggered with BRANCH not master and RELEASE_VERSION is not set (does the 
project owner controls that?) Apparently unrelated to any particular OPNFV 
release as well although would have thought a “danube.3.0-stable” would make 
sense.

“danube.3.0”: related to Danube 3.0 but does not indicate what yardstick repo 
tag it was built from. The git repo has a git tag with the same name 
“danube.3.0”, how are those 2 tags correlated? For example, there is no 
matching git tag for container “colorado.0.15” and there is no matching 
container for git tag “colorado.3.0”.
Also not clear what yardstick project will do to publish a newer version of the 
yardstick container for Danube 3.0?

Project owners should be able to publish finer grain versions of containers in 
a faster pace than the overall OPNFV release (e.g. as frequent as more than 
once a day) and these need to be tracked properly.

The best practice – as seen by most popular container images – is to tag the 
container using a version string that reflects the container source code 
version.
Translating to a project workflow, what is typical:

  *   The project repo uses git tags to version the source code (e.g. “3.2.5”) 
independently of the OPNFV release versioning (e.g. “Danube 3.0”). Such 
versioning should be left at the discretion of the project owners (e.g. Many 
OpenStack projects use the pbr library to take care of component version)
  *   Optionally the project repo can have 1 branch per OPNFV release if 
desired (e.g. “danube”, …) – noting that some projects will not require such 
branches and support every OPNFV release (or a good subset of it) from a single 
master branch (simpler)
  *   Simplest (and this is how the dockerhub automated build works) is to 
trigger a new build either on demand (by project owners) or automatically 
whenever a new git tag is published (by who has permission to do so on that 
project)

I am not familiar with the OPNFV release packaging process (for example how are 
containers tied to a particular release), could someone explain or point to the 
relevant documentation? If you look at the OpenStack model, each release (e.g. 
Newton, Ocata,…) is made of a large number of separate git repos that are all 
versioned independently (i.e. neutron or tempest don’t have version tags that 
contain the openstack release). And each release has a list of all projects 
versions that come with it. Example for Ocata: 
https://releases.openstack.org/ocata/

Is there a similar scheme in OPNFV?


Mark:

  *   Container versioning is orthogonal to the support for multiple containers 
per project (that a project has more than 1 container makes the versioning a 
bit more relevant).
  *   Not being able to rebuild a container from a tag is problematic and I 
agree it needs to be supported



Gabriel:

  *   Using the dockerhub automated build is fine as long as the versioning of 
the built containers is aligned with the OPNFV versioning scheme



Thanks

  Alec




From: Fatih Degirmenci 
Date: Monday, July 10, 2017 at 9:23 AM
To: "Beierl, Mark" , "Alec Hothan (ahothan)" 

Cc: "opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org" 
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Multiple docker containers from one project

Hi,

About the tagging question; in the past we tagged all the images we built and 
stored on Docker hub. The tags for the intermediate versions were set 
incrementally and applied automatically by the build job and release tag was 
applied manually for the release.
But then (some of the) test projects decided not to do that and got rid of 
that. (I don't exactly remember who, why and so on.)

We obviously failed to flag this at that time. This should be discussed by Test 
WG and fixed.

/Fatih

From:  on behalf of "Beierl, Mark" 

Date: Monday, 10 July 2017 at 18:10
To: "Alec Hothan (ahothan)" 
Cc: