Also +1 on option 3.
Would also propose to push releases and snapshots to separate image
repositories.
On 19.05.25 17:46, Dmitri Bourlatchkov wrote:
Option 2 looks very confusing to me. While it can technically work, I think
most people expect the repository name to reflect the nature of the binary,
so apache/polaris would mean "server" by default.
I prefer option 3.
I also think we should have an image for the admin tool because it is
required for bootstrapping.
If the server is in k8s, it would be natural to run the admin tool in k8s
too, hence it needs a docker image. By providing an official image we
greatly simplify users' workflows.
Cheers,
Dmitri.
On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 11:11 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
Hi folks,
Right now, as part of the release and nightly build, we plan to push
the Polaris server docker image (on
https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/polaris).
Concretely, it means we push Polaris server
As part of RC3 release prep, I pushed
apache/polaris:0.10.0-beta-incubating-rc3 image (corresponding to
Polaris server).
The question is regarding the Polaris Admin Tool container image. We
have basically 3 options:
1. We only push Polaris server image on DockerHub (no admin tool):
it's what I do in RC3 prep and also what I proposed in
https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1593
2. We push Polaris Admin Tool in apache/polaris using a tag format
(like apache/polaris:admin-tool-x.y.z)
3. I create a dedicated repository apache/polaris-admin-tool where we
push only admin tool images
Personally, I don't like (2), and I wonder if it makes sense to push
admin tool image. If yes, I would propose (3) and I will be happy to
create the corresponding Docker repository.
Thoughts ?
Regards
JB
--
Robert Stupp
@snazy
