+1 to use a dedicated repository. All reasons listed in the proposal make sense to me.
Best Regards, Yu On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 at 23:56, Igal Shilman <i...@ververica.com> wrote: > +1 for a separate repository. > > Thanks, > Igal > > On Thursday, March 26, 2020, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > > > +1 to a separate repository. > > > > It seems to be best practice in the docker community. > > And since it does not add overhead, why not go with the best practice? > > > > Best, > > Stephan > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 4:15 PM Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai <tzuli...@apache.org > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Flink devs, > > > > > > As part of a Stateful Functions release, we would like to publish > > Stateful > > > Functions Docker images to Dockerhub as an official image. > > > > > > Some background context on Stateful Function images, for those who are > > not > > > familiar with the project yet: > > > > > > - Stateful Function images are built on top of the Flink official > > > images, with additional StateFun dependencies being added. > > > You can take a look at the scripts we currently use to build the > > images > > > locally for development purposes [1]. > > > - They are quite important for user experience, since building a > > Docker > > > image is the recommended go-to deployment mode for StateFun user > > > applications [2]. > > > > > > > > > A prerequisite for all of this is to first decide where we host the > > > Stateful Functions Dockerfiles, > > > before we can proceed with the process of requesting a new official > image > > > repository at Dockerhub. > > > > > > We’re proposing to create a new dedicated repo for this purpose, > > > with the name `apache/flink-statefun-docker`. > > > > > > While we did initially consider integrating the StateFun Dockerfiles to > > be > > > hosted together with the Flink ones in the existing > `apache/flink-docker` > > > repo, we had the following concerns: > > > > > > - In general, it is a convention that each official Dockerhub image > is > > > backed by a dedicated source repo hosting the Dockerfiles. > > > - The `apache/flink-docker` repo already has quite a few dedicated > > > tooling and CI smoke tests specific for the Flink images. > > > - Flink and StateFun have separate versioning schemes and > independent > > > release cycles. A new Flink release does not necessarily require a > > > “lock-step” to release new StateFun images as well. > > > - Considering the above all-together, and the fact that creating a > new > > > repo is rather low-effort, having a separate repo would probably > make > > > more > > > sense here. > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Gordon > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/flink-statefun/blob/master/ > > tools/docker/build-stateful-functions.sh > > > [2] > > > > > > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-statefun- > > docs-master/deployment-and-operations/packaging.html > > > > > >
