It's super easy to do :) On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:33 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'm fine with us just publishing release images using the newest python > release (i.e. 3.7) as the main reason we support older python versions is > to support distros thats ship those versions.(i.e. Deb stable), but I don't > think we need to support that in docker. > > (But if it's easy to do since we want them for ci then sure) > > -ash > > On 11 June 2019 21:21:28 BST, Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > wrote: >> >> 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/>
