+1 for a separate repository. Cheers, Till
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 5:13 PM Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> wrote: > +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 >
