I still think that's mostly a process issue.
Of course we can be blind-sided if we do the QA for a release artifact
after the release has been finalized.
But that's a clearly broken process from the get-go.
At the very least we should already open a PR when the RC is created to
get earlier feedback.
Moreover, nowadays the docker images are way slimmer and we are much
more careful on what is actually added to the scripts.
Finally, the problems they found did show that their QA is very valuable
to us. And side-stepping that for such an essential piece of a release
isn't a good idea imo.
On 28/04/2022 11:31, Xintong Song wrote:
I'm overall against only releasing to official-images.
We started releasing to apache/flink, in addition to the official-image, in
1.12.0. That was because releasing the official-image needs approval from
the DockerHub folks, which is not under control of the Flink community. For
1.12.0 there were unfortunately some divergences between us and the
DockerHub folks, and it ended-up taking us nearly 2 months to get that
official-image PR merged [1][2]. Many users, especially those who need
Flink's K8s & Native-K8s deployment modes, were asking for the image after
1.12.0 was announced.
One could argue that what happened for 1.12.0 is not a regular case.
However, I'd like to point out that the docker images are not something
nice-to-have, but a practically necessary piece of the release for the k8s
/ native-k8s deployments to work. I'm strongly against a release process
where such an important piece depends on the approval of a 3rd party.
Thank you~
Xintong Song
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-20650
[2] https://github.com/docker-library/official-images/pull/9249
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 2:43 PM Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> wrote:
We could just stop releasing to apache/flink and only go for the
official-images route.
On 28/04/2022 07:43, Xintong Song wrote:
Forgot to mention that, we have also proposed to use one shared account
and
limit its access to the PMC members, like what we do with the PyPI
account.
Unfortunately, INFRA rejected this proposal [1].
Thank you~
Xintong Song
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-23208
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 1:39 PM Xintong Song <tonysong...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi devs,
I'd like to start a discussion about maintainers for DockerHub
repositories under the *apache* namespace [1].
Currently, the Flink community maintains various repositories (flink,
flink-statefun, flink-statefun-playground, and
flink-kubernetes-operator)
on DockerHub under the *apache* namespace. There's a limitation on how
many
members the *apache* namespace can add, and recently INFRA is
complaining
about Flink taking too many places [2][3]. They would like us to reduce
our
maintainers from 20 now to 5.
Jingsong and I would like to volunteer as two of the maintainers, and we
would like to learn who else wants to join us. While any committer may
serve as one of the maintainers, it's probably nice to also involve at
least one maintainer from statefun and one from kubernetes-operator.
What do you think?
Thank you~
Xintong Song
[1] https://hub.docker.com/orgs/apache
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-23208
[3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-23213
