> The only downside will be for users that are using the BK docker image as
> base image, as Ubuntu is very different from Centos and so consumers of
the
> image will have to do some work while upgrading.
How much work would need to be done? Are you just referring to the tooling
that
exists in the
How did it end up on centos in the first place?
+1 for moving to ubuntu.
-Ivan
On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 1:03 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
> I have found a PR [1] that is about upgrading the base image to Centos 8
> because the Centos 7 image has some reported vulnerabilities.
>
> I
Hello folks,
I have found a PR [1] that is about upgrading the base image to Centos 8
because the Centos 7 image has some reported vulnerabilities.
I believe that upgrading to Centos 8 could be fine, but it is not enough to
cover this kind of problem.
In the Apache Pulsar community we recently sw
Thanks for the quick turn around on this, Enrico
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021, 9:30 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Sorry about that.
> You can find the image here
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21000
>
> btw the Docker image for 14.2.1 is now available on Dockerhub
>
> Enrico
>
> Il giorno g
Sorry about that.
You can find the image here
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21000
btw the Docker image for 14.2.1 is now available on Dockerhub
Enrico
Il giorno gio 18 feb 2021 alle ore 17:47 Jonathan Ellis
ha scritto:
> (The image did not come through for me.)
>
> On Thu, Feb 18
(The image did not come through for me.)
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 1:50 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Hello,
> Due to recent changes in the Python world the latest Dockerimage for BK
> 4.12.1 was not built.
>
> I sent a fix
> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/2609
> and Andrey merged it, thi
Hello,
Due to recent changes in the Python world the latest Dockerimage for BK
4.12.1 was not built.
I sent a fix
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/2609
and Andrey merged it, this way we can have a healthy 4.13.0 release
The image below (I hope that it is not dropped by the ML) is the cur
lly bad practice. Good to see this
> changing.
>
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 6:59 AM, Enrico Olivelli
> wrote:
> > Il mar 29 mag 2018, 02:50 Sijie Guo ha scritto:
> >
> >> Since I am going to cut a new release 4.7.1, I would like to change the
> >> release
t;
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> - Sijie
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Jia Zhai wrote:
>>
>> > +1
>> >
>> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Enrico Olivelli
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Il mar 17 apr 2018,
Il mar 29 mag 2018, 02:50 Sijie Guo ha scritto:
> Since I am going to cut a new release 4.7.1, I would like to change the
> release procedure for docker images, we don't need to retag release tags
> for updating docker files.
>
> Please take a look at this BP -
> ht
Since I am going to cut a new release 4.7.1, I would like to change the
release procedure for docker images, we don't need to retag release tags
for updating docker files.
Please take a look at this BP -
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/1450
- Sijie
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 12:
+1
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Enrico Olivelli
wrote:
> Il mar 17 apr 2018, 20:57 Sijie Guo ha scritto:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Current docker images are auto-built by apache docker account. It
> becomes a
> > bit problematic in the release process. We m
Il mar 17 apr 2018, 20:57 Sijie Guo ha scritto:
> Hi all,
>
> Current docker images are auto-built by apache docker account. It becomes a
> bit problematic in the release process. We might consider moving the docker
> build process out of apache main repo.
>
> So I am rest
Hi all,
Current docker images are auto-built by apache docker account. It becomes a
bit problematic in the release process. We might consider moving the docker
build process out of apache main repo.
So I am restarting the discussion about "official docker image", following
what flin
certain delay after the trigger. Docker push
approach doesn't have this inconvenient.
A more ideal situation for me -
for release image, we should only pick a image that pass all the
CI/CD
pipeline and tag it as release. The current `download-package`
approach to
build release docker im
will be the same cluster side.
>
> One thing to consider: build from docker hub can be triggered, but I
> don't know if it is possible to know when it finish. If it isn't, tests
> should be run with a certain delay after the trigger. Docker push
> approach doesn't have
when it finish. If it isn't, tests
should be run with a certain delay after the trigger. Docker push
approach doesn't have this inconvenient.
A more ideal situation for me -
for release image, we should only pick a image that pass all the
CI/CD
pipeline and tag it as release. The curren
er to manage for bring up
> > a cluster. If we manage to "docker push" the image after the build then
> > the complexity will be the same cluster side.
> >
> > One thing to consider: build from docker hub can be triggered, but I
> > don't know if it is possible
will be the same cluster side.
>
> One thing to consider: build from docker hub can be triggered, but I
> don't know if it is possible to know when it finish. If it isn't, tests
> should be run with a certain delay after the trigger. Docker push
> approach doesn't have this
the image after the build then
the complexity will be the same cluster side.
One thing to consider: build from docker hub can be triggered, but I
don't know if it is possible to know when it finish. If it isn't, tests
should be run with a certain delay after the trigger. Docker push
lity testsing), failure (jepsen) tests and then benchmark.
You need a nightly image for this purpose. A more ideal situation for me -
for release image, we should only pick a image that pass all the CI/CD
pipeline and tag it as release. The current `download-package` approach to
build release docker
diennea.com><mailto:francesco.cali...@diennea.com
<mailto:francesco.cali...@diennea.com>mailto:francesco.cali...@diennea.com><mailto:francesco.cali...@diennea.com>>>
wrote:
My view for these topics:
1) I'm a big fan of official docker images, so it's ok
; si...@gmail.com><mailto:guo
> si...@gmail.com<mailto:si...@gmail.com>><mailto:guo
> si...@gmail.com<mailto:si...@gmail.com><mailto:si...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Aug 21, 2017 12:56 AM, "Francesco Caliumi - Diennea" <
> fra
i...@diennea.com<mailto:francesco.cali...@diennea.com><mailto:francesco.cali...@diennea.com>mailto:francesco.cali...@diennea.com>>>
wrote:
My view for these topics:
1) I'm a big fan of official docker images, so it's ok for me.
2) For latest build, both Jia and En
Aug 22, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Sijie Guo mailto:guo
si...@gmail.com><mailto:guo
si...@gmail.com<mailto:si...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
On Aug 21, 2017 12:56 AM, "Francesco Caliumi - Diennea" <
francesco.cali...@diennea.com<mailto:francesco.cali...@diennea.com>>
wro
lto:francesco.cali...@diennea.com><mailto:francesco.cali...@diennea.com>>
wrote:
My view for these topics:
1) I'm a big fan of official docker images, so it's ok for me.
2) For latest build, both Jia and Enrico solutions are ok, but I think
Enrico's maven target one is the m
;
> Thanks.
> -Jia
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Sijie Guo mailto:guo
> si...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Aug 21, 2017 12:56 AM, "Francesco Caliumi - Diennea" <
> francesco.cali...@diennea.com<mailto:francesco.cali...@diennea
n Aug 21, 2017 12:56 AM, "Francesco Caliumi - Diennea" <
francesco.cali...@diennea.com<mailto:francesco.cali...@diennea.com>> wrote:
My view for these topics:
1) I'm a big fan of official docker images, so it's ok for me.
2) For latest build, both Jia and Enrico soluti
17 at 12:55 PM, Sijie Guo wrote:
> On Aug 21, 2017 12:56 AM, "Francesco Caliumi - Diennea" <
> francesco.cali...@diennea.com> wrote:
>
> My view for these topics:
>
> 1) I'm a big fan of official docker images, so it's ok for me.
>
> 2) For latest bu
On Aug 21, 2017 12:56 AM, "Francesco Caliumi - Diennea" <
francesco.cali...@diennea.com> wrote:
My view for these topics:
1) I'm a big fan of official docker images, so it's ok for me.
2) For latest build, both Jia and Enrico solutions are ok, but I think
Enrico'
My view for these topics:
1) I'm a big fan of official docker images, so it's ok for me.
2) For latest build, both Jia and Enrico solutions are ok, but I think Enrico's
maven target one is the most flexible.
Who usually need the nightly build are developers, who do not care ver
o get the credentials to do that.
> > > > Because the dist/dev is a svn repo, during a release, the release
> > manager
> > > > uses its own credentials to commit the new packages to the svn repo.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > >
.com/r/apache/bookkeeper/builds/
> > > > bvzft3fsnpmmj5i8jnpk3fl/>
> > > > is caused by connection(from dockerhub to gpg key server) issue. It
> is
> > > also
> > > > one reason to come out PR420 <https://github.com/apache/
> > > >
> > > bvzft3fsnpmmj5i8jnpk3fl/>
> > > is caused by connection(from dockerhub to gpg key server) issue. It is
> > also
> > > one reason to come out PR420 <https://github.com/apache/
> > > bookkeeper/pull/420>,
> > > which wanted to download local
caused by connection(from dockerhub to gpg key server) issue. It is
> > also
> > > one reason to come out PR420 <https://github.com/apache/
> > > bookkeeper/pull/420>,
> > > which wanted to download local KEY to avoid gpg server connection, But
> we
> > >
aused by connection(from dockerhub to gpg key server) issue. It is
> also
> > one reason to come out PR420 <https://github.com/apache/
> > bookkeeper/pull/420>,
> > which wanted to download local KEY to avoid gpg server connection, But we
> > agree that it is not very
> bookkeeper/pull/420>,
> which wanted to download local KEY to avoid gpg server connection, But we
> agree that it is not very security.
>
I think there are a few drawbacks that I can see in current approach:
- building the packages and building the docker images are managed by two
differen
any official channel for
> releasing an official docker image.
>
> So the docker image is currently marked as "Non-official bookkeeper
> convenience binaries".
>
> We can consider following other projects are doing (e.g. flink
> <https://hub.docker.com/r/library/flink/&
anaged by the Apache BK PMC and push docker images there. I'd
like to know what are people's thoughts on this.
[1] https://docs.docker.com/docker-hub/official_repos/
[2] https://github.com/docker-library/docs
[3] https://flink.apache.org/news/2017/05/16/official-docker-image.html
2) Latest a
39 matches
Mail list logo
