Yes but we can use tag that way “by convention”. Le mar. 20 mai 2025 à 10:18, Robert Stupp <sn...@snazy.de> a écrit :
> There's no notion of "snapshot" or "nightly" for image tags. That's why > we're pushing for the separate repos. > > On 20.05.25 05:18, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > > 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 > >>>>>> > -- > Robert Stupp > @snazy > >
