I think it's more for the community to decide. The ASF has some general rules that we follow, yet there is usually a lot of room for community to decide.
If we think we're good.with the rules, I believe we're good :) J. niedz., 7 cze 2020, 22:51 użytkownik Bas Harenslak <basharens...@godatadriven.com.invalid> napisał: > I could give my own opinion about this thing, but is there nobody at > Apache that can answer this question? > > Bas > > > On 7 Jun 2020, at 20:09, Philippe Gagnon <philgagn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hello Jarek, > > > > Since they are clearly marked as alpha releases I think this is okay. > Just > > my opinion though. > > > > Regards, > > > > Philippe > > > > On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 1:09 PM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Hello everyone, > >> > >> We have a question with Ash whether the way we are distributing alpha > >> releases of our Docker images is ok for everyone. This is mainly to the > >> other PMCs in the project but anyone's opinion is welcome. > >> > >> *Context:* > >> > >> We have been iterating with the production image over the last few days > >> with Ash - we tried to make them usable for the helm chart and we had to > >> add a few scripts. In order to make them testable with the Helm chart, > we > >> pushed images built using official airflow 1.10.10 release but with a > few > >> modifications (some script like entrypoint and clean-logs were updated). > >> > >> We've been thinking that this is "borderline" OK with Apache rules for > >> unreleased software ( > >> https://infra.apache.org/release-distribution.html#unreleased). > >> While we seem to be ok with the first three rules, the fourth one is a > bit > >> vague: > >> > >> * must not be distributed through channels which encourage use by anyone > >> outside the project development community > >> > >> Those images are available in the DockerHub in apache/airlfow project > with > >> names like: > >> > >> * apache/airflow:1.10.10.1-alpha1-python3.6 > >> * apache/airflow:1.10.10.1-alpha2-python3.6 > >> > >> I have a PR where we keep track of the changes and where we explain the > >> reasoning behind it and clearly mark it as "alpha/development" > releases: > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/9162/files > >> > >> *Question:* > >> > >> Is this OK for everyone that we follow it this way? > >> > >> > >> *Content of the note in IMAGES.rst:* > >> > >> Alpha versions of 1.10.10 production-ready images > >> > >> The production images have been released for the first time in 1.10.10 > >> release of Airflow as "Alpha" quality ones. Between 1.10.10 the images > are > >> being improved and the 1.10.10 images should be patched and published > >> several times separately in order to test them with the upcoming Helm > >> Chart. > >> > >> Those images are for development and testing only and should not be used > >> outside of the development community. > >> > >> The images were pushed with tags following the pattern: > >> apache/airflow:1.10.10.1-alphaN-pythonX.Y.. Patch level is an increasing > >> number (starting from 1). > >> > >> Those are alpha-quality releases however they contain the officially > >> released Airflow 1.10.10 code. The main changes in the images are > scripts > >> embedded in the images. > >> > >> The following versions were pushed: > >> > >> > +-------+--------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------------+ > >> | Patch | Tag pattern | Description > >> | > >> > >> > +=======+================================+==========================================================+ > >> | 1 | ``1.10.10.1-alpha1-pythonX.Y`` | Support for parameters added > to > >> bash and python commands | > >> > >> > +-------+--------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------------+ > >> | 2 | ``1.10.10-1-alpha2-pythonX.Y`` | Added "/clean-logs" script > >> | > >> > >> > +-------+--------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------------+ > >> The commits used to generate those images are tagged with > >> prod-image-1.10.10.1-alphaN tags. > >> > >> > >> J. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Jarek Potiuk > >> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > >> > >> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > >> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > >> > >
