Yeah Kamil - python 3.5 is the default one for now. I think we should have another discussion here - how many versions to support. There is this ticket opened today : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-4762 about supporting python 3.6 and 3.7 in tests. Anyone has a strong opinion on this? I am for testing on all 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 even if it increases the build/test time on Travis. There are a number of differences between those major versions (I have a blog post about it in writing ) but I think there is concern about eating Apache Travis time.
Anyone against those three ? On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 8:38 PM Kamil Breguła <kamil.breg...@polidea.com> wrote: > 1) I would prefer to use one repository. > +1 > > 2) The presented schema looks logical to me. I had doubts whether > Python 3.5 was a good choice for "latest" version, but I checked that > travis uses only this version. > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:04 PM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > wrote: > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > We are close to finish AIP-10 (Airlfow image for CI) and seems that we > will > > start working soon on an official image AIP, but in the meantime we have > > 1.10.4 release coming and we would like to agree tagging scheme used for > > the current CI images. We discussed it a bit on Slack, but it's time to > > bring it here. I created a JIRA issue for it: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-4764 and my proposals > after > > the initial discussion are those: > > > > First of all we have different images that we can talk about : > > > > 1. "base" one - with bare development-ready airflow with minimum set > of > > dependencies > > 2. "CI" with all the tools packages that are needed for CI tests > > 3. Soon we will likely have an "official" one which might be used in > > similar fashion as the "puckel" one. > > > > There are two decisions to make: > > > > 1) How to keep those images - in one repository or whether we should have > > separate repos. > > > > It is easier for now to keep all of them within apache/airflow > > <https://cloud.docker.com/u/apache/repository/docker/apache/airflow> > repository > > it seems and use a labelling scheme to separate those (there is nothing > > wrong with that but it might seem a bit hacky). It's a bit easier to > > maintain with access and CI. > > > > We could also think about separate apache/airflow-ci, apache/airflow-dev, > > apache/airflow-prod or smth similar - that would require some > > infrastructure tickets and is not very common. > > > > 2) What labelling scheme to use(apache/airflow:label). My proposal is > > similar to this (if we keep everything in the airflow repository) > > > > - *latest* = latest released version (python 3.5) = * > v1.10.3-python3.5* > > - *master* = latest master version (python 3.5) = > *v2.0.0dev0-python3.5* > > - *v1.10.3-python3.5,v1.10.3-python3.6* - released 1.10.3 with python > > 3.5/3.6 > > - *latest-ci *= latest released version of CI variant (python 3.5) > > *v1.10.3-ci-python3.5* > > - *master-ci* = latest master version of CI variant (python 3.5) > > *v2.0.0dev0-ci-python3.5* > > - *v1.10.3-ci-python3.5, v1.10.3-ci-python3.6* - released 1.10.3 with > > python 3.5/3.6 > > > > > > My preference is to keep all the images in one repo and use labelling > > scheme as above, > > but I am open to discuss this. > > > > J, > > > > > > -- > > > > Jarek Potiuk > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > -- Jarek Potiuk Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
