+1 for a separate repository. The dedicated `flink-docker` repo works fine now. We can do it similarly.
Best, Hequn On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 1:16 AM Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> wrote: > +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 > > >
