Hi Marton,
Thank you for your input. I agree with most of what you said with a few
exceptions. Security fix should result in a different version of the image
instead of replace of a certain version. Dockerfile is most likely to change
to apply the security fix. If it did not change, the source has instability
over time, and result in non-buildable code over time. When maven release is
automated through Jenkins, this is a breeze of clicking a button. Jenkins even
increment the target version automatically with option to edit. It makes
release manager's job easier than Homer Simpson's job.
If versioning is done correctly, older branches can have the same docker
subproject, and Hadoop 2.7.8 can be released for older Hadoop branches. We
don't generate timeline paradox to allow changing the history of Hadoop 2.7.1.
That release has passed and let it stay that way.
There are mounting evidence that Hadoop community wants docker profile for
developer image. Precommit build will not catch some build errors because more
codes are allowed to slip through using profile build process. I will make
adjustment accordingly unless 7 more people comes out and say otherwise.
Regards,
Eric
On 3/19/19, 1:18 AM, "Elek, Marton" <e...@apache.org> wrote:
Thank you Eric to describe the problem.
I have multiple small comments, trying to separate them.
I. separated vs in-build container image creation
> The disadvantages are:
>
> 1. Require developer to have access to docker.
> 2. Default build takes longer.
These are not the only disadvantages (IMHO) as I wrote it in in the
previous thread and the issue [1]
Using in-build container image creation doesn't enable:
1. to modify the image later (eg. apply security fixes to the container
itself or apply improvements for the startup scripts)
2. create images for older releases (eg. hadoop 2.7.1)
I think there are two kind of images:
a) images for released artifacts
b) developer images
I would prefer to manage a) with separated branch repositories but b)
with (optional!) in-build process.
II. Agree with Steve. I think it's better to make it optional as most of
the time it's not required. I think it's better to support the default
dev build with the default settings (=just enough to start)
III. Maven best practices
(https://dzone.com/articles/maven-profile-best-practices)
I think this is a good article. But this is not against profiles but
creating multiple versions from the same artifact with the same name
(eg. jdk8/jdk11). In Hadoop, profiles are used to introduce optional
steps. I think it's fine as the maven lifecycle/phase model is very
static (compare it with the tree based approach in Gradle).
Marton
[1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-16091
On 3/13/19 11:24 PM, Eric Yang wrote:
> Hi Hadoop developers,
>
> In the recent months, there were various discussions on creating docker
build process for Hadoop. There was convergence to make docker build process
inline in the mailing list last month when Ozone team is planning new
repository for Hadoop/ozone docker images. New feature has started to add
docker image build process inline in Hadoop build.
> A few lessons learnt from making docker build inline in YARN-7129. The
build environment must have docker to have a successful docker build.
BUILD.txt stated for easy build environment use Docker. There is logic in
place to ensure that absence of docker does not trigger docker build. The
inline process tries to be as non-disruptive as possible to existing
development environment with one exception. If docker’s presence is detected,
but user does not have rights to run docker. This will cause the build to fail.
>
> Now, some developers are pushing back on inline docker build process
because existing environment did not make docker build process mandatory.
However, there are benefits to use inline docker build process. The listed
benefits are:
>
> 1. Source code tag, maven repository artifacts and docker hub artifacts
can all be produced in one build.
> 2. Less manual labor to tag different source branches.
> 3. Reduce intermediate build caches that may exist in multi-stage builds.
> 4. Release engineers and developers do not need to search a maze of
build flags to acquire artifacts.
>
> The disadvantages are:
>
> 1. Require developer to have access to docker.
> 2. Default build takes longer.
>
> There is workaround for above disadvantages by using -DskipDocker flag to
avoid docker build completely or -pl !modulename to bypass subprojects.
> Hadoop development did not follow Maven best practice because a full
Hadoop build requires a number of profile and configuration parameters. Some
evolutions are working against Maven design and require fork of separate source
trees for different subprojects and pom files. Maven best practice
(https://dzone.com/articles/maven-profile-best-practices) has explained that do
not use profile to trigger different artifact builds because it will introduce
maven artifact naming conflicts on maven repository using this pattern. Maven
offers flags to skip certain operations, such as -DskipTests
-Dmaven.javadoc.skip=true -pl or -DskipDocker. It seems worthwhile to make
some corrections to follow best practice for Hadoop build.
>
> Some developers have advocated for separate build process for docker
images. We need consensus on the direction that will work best for Hadoop
development community. Hence, my questions are:
>
> Do we want to have inline docker build process in maven?
> If yes, it would be developer’s responsibility to pass -DskipDocker flag
to skip docker. Docker is mandatory for default build.
> If no, what is the release flow for docker images going to look like?
>
> Thank you for your feedback.
>
> Regards,
> Eric
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org
