How would tools like dependabot and Renovate distinguish work then?
I think having separate `-unstable` repos is the safest way forward. On 20.05.25 19:10, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
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
-- Robert Stupp @snazy
