+1. The repo creation process is a light-weight, automated process on the ASF side. When Patrick Lucas contributed docker-flink back to the Flink community (as flink-docker), there was virtually no overhead in creating the repository. Reusing build scripts should still be possible at the cost of some duplication which is fine imo.
– Ufuk On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 4:18 PM 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
