That makes sense. The reason I had doubts is because of the way docker hub lists image tags together -- there's no real differentiation between pre-release and release builds. But then I suppose that if the tagging scheme is explicit enough it shouldn't be an issue.
+1 on `:latest` being an official release. On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 10:25 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote: > That page does mention "Nightly" builds which is close to what building > master would be. The other thing that matters is what we actual call A > Release. > > > Do not include any links on the project website that might encourage > non-developers to download and use nightly builds, snapshots, release > candidates, or any other similar package > > I think we're find so long as we don't do that -- or in this case, since > we will probably want to link to the docker hub page once we have versioned > images there if we make it clear that `:master` is not intended for end > users, and by the same argument if we have anything as `:latest` it should > be a docker image relating to an official Release. > > Jarek: no `latest` pointing at CI images please. > > -a > > > On 17 Jun 2019, at 15:04, Philippe Gagnon <philgagn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > One thing: we talked about releasing images under a "master" tag > (perhaps in another thread?), we should check if this is compatible with > Apache's release policy [1]. It's not clear to me if this is allowable or > not after a cursory reading. > > > > [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#what > > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 9:48 AM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > wrote: > > Anyone has more comments. I think prevailing opnion is: > > 1) To keep all images in one repo (apache/airflow) > > 2) I am not sure about labelling but I might try to document all cases > in a > > "production" image proposal that I would like to start as soon as we > merge > > the current CI image (which I think is quite close to finalisation). > > > > J. > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:59 PM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > > wrote: > > > > > 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 BreguĊa < > 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/> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jarek Potiuk > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > >
