Hi, FYI, I created the DockerHub repository for polaris-admin-tool:
https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/polaris-admin-tool I'm now pushing the Docker images for 1.0.0-incubating release on both repositories. Regards JB On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 8:20 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > > 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 > > >> > >
