Hi Let's split the discussion in two parts. This thread is about polaris-admin-tool DockerHub repo. We have a consensus on option 3, so I will create a DockerHub repo for admin-tool.
I will start a separate thread about nightly images. Thanks everyone! Regards JB On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 2:34 AM Adnan Hemani <adnan.hem...@snowflake.com.invalid> wrote: > > Personally, I’m unsure about what good a nightly Docker image build helps > with. If we’re backing up to the same Docker Hub repository, I think it could > make some sense as long as we manage the “latest” tag properly to only ever > tag releases since the proposed effort and maintenance overhead is low - but > if we are going through the effort to create a whole new nightly/snapshot > repo, what does this help us achieve? Do we see a proper use case for > customers to ever really need that? > > On the question that started this thread about the Polaris Admin Tool, I’m > onboard with Option 3 - let’s separate out the Admin Tool and the Server. We > should be careful to ensure that these move together in terms of versioning - > but I don’t see that as a big enough concern to refute this option. > > Best, > Adnan Hemani > > > On May 22, 2025, at 12:12 PM, Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > 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://www.google.com/url?q=https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/gravitino/tags&source=gmail-imap&ust=1748545963000000&usg=AOvVaw32_izMPTTmU8H9LY8DFkqU). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 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://www.google.com/url?q=https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/polaris&source=gmail-imap&ust=1748545963000000&usg=AOvVaw2XdKjt_AvlaM7mSP0rHDof). > >>>>>>>>>>> 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://www.google.com/url?q=https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1593&source=gmail-imap&ust=1748545963000000&usg=AOvVaw1BisjFCR64xVl636VC0Kwt > >>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >> >
