Yes agree. Latest would be a valid tag only for release images.
Snapshot images will be just … snapshot tag ;) (not latest).

Regards
JB

Le lun. 19 mai 2025 à 21:40, Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org> a
écrit :

> If  we put nightlies in the same repo, we should be careful with the
> "latest" tag.
>
> I suppose users will expect "latest" to track only officially released
> images in that case.
>
> It might even be worth _not_ using the "latest" tag at all.
>
> Cheers,
> Dmitri.
>
> On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 3:24 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net>
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
>

Reply via email to