good point about Renovate! On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 4:49 AM Robert Stupp <sn...@snazy.de> wrote:
> 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 >
