On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Jia Zhai <zhaiji...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Sijie for raising these good topics up. > > Regarding 1) official image, the Flink one is similar as Zookeeper one, > which we have discussed before. If the currently approach could not make > bookkeeper docker image official, we should go this way. > Regarding 2) nightly build, there is already an issue > <https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/289> opened. Seems the issue > is where to put the nightly build images, since for both way of official > image, there is limited access to the dockerhub, The first thought in my > head is to place a nightly build somewhere, such as ( > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bookkeeper/), and the current > docker > file will not changed too much, seems only some env var need change. > currently we don't have any process to produce any nightly built packages. If we are planning to use dist/dev for hosting the nightly build, we need to figure out how to get the credentials to do that. Because the dist/dev is a svn repo, during a release, the release manager uses its own credentials to commit the new packages to the svn repo. > > Regarding 3), the build failure > <https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/bookkeeper/builds/ > bvzft3fsnpmmj5i8jnpk3fl/> > is caused by connection(from dockerhub to gpg key server) issue. It is also > one reason to come out PR420 <https://github.com/apache/ > bookkeeper/pull/420>, > which wanted to download local KEY to avoid gpg server connection, But we > agree that it is not very security. > I think there are a few drawbacks that I can see in current approach: - building the packages and building the docker images are managed by two different systems. - the `latest` image isn't really a tag pointing to the image of latest release; the latest is actually building from master. any changes pushed to master unnecessarily trigger auto build in docker hub, even the package itself isn't changed. - building a nightly package is not trivial. If we step back and revisit my comment in https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/197#issuecomment-317831799, if we use `docker push` approach and let jenkins build and push docker images, it seems to be much easier to address the above issues. Thoughts? - Sijie > > Regards. > -Jia > > > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > A couple questions to discuss: > > > > 1) Official Image > > > > Currently the docker image is hosted under `apache` docker hub account. > > However we can't mark the image as the official apache release because of > > apache releasing policy. Technically there isn't any official channel for > > releasing an official docker image. > > > > So the docker image is currently marked as "Non-official bookkeeper > > convenience binaries". > > > > We can consider following other projects are doing (e.g. flink > > <https://hub.docker.com/r/library/flink/>) - create an "official" docker > > repository managed by the Apache BK PMC and push docker images there. I'd > > like to know what are people's thoughts on this. > > > > [1] https://docs.docker.com/docker-hub/official_repos/ > > [2] https://github.com/docker-library/docs > > [3] https://flink.apache.org/news/2017/05/16/official-docker-image.html > > > > 2) Latest and Nightly Build. > > > > Using current approach, the latest build is effectively a build of latest > > release. If we want to support a docker image of latest master, how do we > > plan to do that? I know there are github issues created for this, but I > > don't see any discussions around that. I'd like to bring this on dev@ to > > see if we can move this forward. > > > > I also noticed that the auto build on docker hub keeps failing for 3 > days. > > Is that expected? > > > > - Sijie > > >
