I'm not super convinced by a repository dedicated to nightly or snapshot. A nightly or a SNAPSHOT is a version/tag of an image. So, I would expect to have it in the same repository as the released images.
For instance, you would have apache/polaris:x.y.z and apache/polaris:x.y.z-SNAPSHOT Some projects do that (for instance https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/gravitino/tags). I would propose to have apache/polaris and apache/polaris-admin-tool repos. Thoughts ? Regards JB On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 8:43 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org> wrote: > > Using a different repo name for nightlies / unstable sounds good to me, > > Cheers, > Dmitri. > > On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 12:19 PM Alex Dutra <alex.du...@dremio.com.invalid> > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > To be honest my preference would be Option 4: a different image name > > for everything that is "nightly" or "unstable". For example, > > "apache/polaris-unstable" or "apache/polaris-admin-tool-nightly". > > > > My reasoning is simple: make it almost impossible for a user to > > accidentally deploy an unstable version of the server into production, > > by confusing an unstable tag with a production-ready one. > > > > Otherwise, I can also live with Option 3, especially if we use tags > > that are "scary" enough to dissuade people from using them in > > production. > > > > Option 1 would be really bad for DevOps workflows: for example, I > > think running Kubernetes Jobs to bootstrap or purge realms (or doing > > other administrative tasks) will become a common practice; but in this > > case, the tool must be available as a Docker image. > > > > Option 2 is also bad: users expect Docker binaries to contain the same > > "thing" regardless of tags, so it would be confusing to mix binaries > > for the server and the tool under the same image. Not to mention that > > mixing binaries would absolutely preclude the usage of the tag > > "latest" since we wouldn't know if "latest" contains the server or the > > tool. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Alex > > > > > > On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 5:53 PM Robert Stupp <sn...@snazy.de> wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > >
