Hi Clebert- I do not have all the info yet, INFRA has assigned the ticket but not started working on it =)
-Matt > On Feb 19, 2021, at 9:25 AM, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I tried to follow the JIRA on Infra and I did not see much information about > it. > > What's the procedure to upload images? > > > The only thing I saw was this JIRA: But it seemed you would be > uploading images manually? > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21430 > > > > Isn't there an official way to provide the images? > > > In artemis we have a docker module where you would build the binaries > and create the image. We would just need to add that to a Jenkins > build and produce an image whenever a tag is created. > I suppose ActiveMQ branch would do the same... > > > How this is supposed to work? > > > thank you > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 4:13 PM Matt Pavlovich <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> The initial features list and notes in the JIRA reflect this approach. I’ll >> start on the module and push a PR this weekend. >> >> Thanks, >> Matt >> >>> On Feb 17, 2021, at 2:08 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I agree, I think it’s the most convenient approach. >>> >>> For instance, at Karaf, I maintain a Dockerfile as part of the codebase: >>> https://github.com/apache/karaf/tree/master/assemblies/docker >>> <https://github.com/apache/karaf/tree/master/assemblies/docker> >>> >>> As part of a Karaf release, I’m pushing Karaf docker image. >>> >>> However, anyone can start from the Karaf Dockerfile to create their own one >>> (we also provide a goal on the karaf-maven-plugin to do so). >>> >>> I think ActiveMQ (at least classic) should just provide a Dockerfile (or a >>> set) and push "official" docker images. But still letting people to create >>> their own. >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>>> Le 17 févr. 2021 à 19:51, Hossack, Etienne <[email protected]> a >>>> écrit : >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> Following this discussion with interest, since I greatly enjoy the >>>> portability and consistency that Docker provides. >>>> I have some questions about the Dockerfile linked above that might be best >>>> served in a code review, but a more holistic question I wanted to ask: >>>> Does ActiveMQ need to publish the Dockerfile? >>>> In my opinion, simply defining the image then documenting its location >>>> (README, website) and how to use it would add value to many consumers. >>>> That way: >>>> * The Dockerfile code can live within the ActiveMQ repository and be close >>>> to the code >>>> * Anyone who wishes to consume the dockerfile can (Apache 2.0 license) >>>> through their own build process >>>> * The ActiveMQ community does not need to maintain any additional >>>> infrastructure, release process, repositories, dependencies. >>>> * The Dockerfile can and should be independent of particular binaries >>>> <https://docs.docker.com/develop/develop-images/dockerfile_best-practices/#env> >>>> whenever possible, but even if not, this way each active branch would be >>>> the source of truth for a functioning Dockerfile (can build and run tests >>>> on the version), and no incremental versions would have to be published. >>>> I think we could gain lots of value for little investment this way. What >>>> do you think? >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Étienne >>>> >>>> P.S. should I add the questions on the JIRA ticket as well? >>>> >>>> >>>> Étienne Hossack >>>> Software Development Engineer, Amazon MQ >>>> email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> phone: +1-778-945-8287 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Feb 17, 2021, at 9:38 AM, Clebert Suconic <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not >>>>> click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and >>>>> know the content is safe. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It would be nice to do the same with Artemis... we already have scripts to >>>>> build the images as part of the build.. we just don't have the builds yet. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 10:36 AM Jenkins, Rodney J (Rod) < >>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hello All, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Quick introduction: My name is Rod. I work with Chuck. I am stepping >>>>>> in >>>>>> while he is out. I am the coworker who does the TomEE images. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I have a question on the tarballs on https://archive.apache.org >>>>>> <https://archive.apache.org/> and >>>>>> https://repo1.maven.org <https://repo1.maven.org/>. I noticed that the >>>>>> images are not the same SHA >>>>>> and not the same size. Is there a reason for that? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> BTW, the Dockerfile is mostly complete, >>>>>> https://github.com/shankc1crs/docker-activemq/blob/master/classic/5.16/jre11/openjdk-buster/Dockerfile >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://github.com/shankc1crs/docker-activemq/blob/master/classic/5.16/jre11/openjdk-buster/Dockerfile>. >>>>>> I think the only thing left was getting the maven download to work as the >>>>>> fallback to the other repos. I can still make that work, but I thought >>>>>> it >>>>>> was strange to see a difference in the sizes of the files. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This is what we are proposing. I am going to start on the other options >>>>>> later today. We would be happy for any feedback. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rod. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From: *"Shank, Charles R" <[email protected] >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>> *Date: *Tuesday, February 16, 2021 at 8:49 AM >>>>>> *To: *Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected] >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>, Matt Pavlovich < >>>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, >>>>>> "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" >>>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>> *Cc: *"Jenkins, Rodney J (Rod)" <[email protected] >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>> *Subject: *Official Docker Image for ActiveMQ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Jean, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree we should make this its own issue and open up the discussion to >>>>>> the ActiveMQ community >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Currently, we are working on the following repository to provide generic >>>>>> images available to the ActiveMQ community. You can follow our progress >>>>>> here: *https://github.com/shankc1crs/docker-activemq >>>>>> <https://github.com/shankc1crs/docker-activemq> >>>>>> <https://github.com/shankc1crs/docker-activemq >>>>>> <https://github.com/shankc1crs/docker-activemq>>* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Because the needs of the community are varied, we recommend making >>>>>> multiple versions of ActiveMQ classic and Artemis. The repos also will >>>>>> be >>>>>> created to include OpenJDK and AdoptopenJDK. We also recommend leaving >>>>>> room for other operating systems other than Debian and multiple versions >>>>>> of >>>>>> JDK within both OpenJDK and AdoptopenJDK. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Given the number of options, we are not sure how we would go about using >>>>>> a >>>>>> module to maintain the dockerfiles, but would be open to it. Once we >>>>>> get >>>>>> our dockerimages complete, we can discuss how they are maintained going >>>>>> forward. We will also investigate with the folks at >>>>>> https://github.com/docker-library <https://github.com/docker-library> >>>>>> to see what is required to get our >>>>>> images listed as the official images. I have a coworker that is >>>>>> responsible for the TomEE official images and has some contacts there. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We would like to get the communities thoughts and input on this course of >>>>>> action. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you >>>>>> >>>>>> Chuck Shank >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [image: cid:[email protected] >>>>>> <cid:[email protected]>] >>>>>> [image: cid:[email protected] >>>>>> <cid:[email protected]>] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Clebert Suconic >>>> >>> >> > > > -- > Clebert Suconic
