Could we first figure out the process (where to push, how to push, permissions needed, how to validate etc.) as part of the snapshots and update the release guide based on that?
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 2:43 AM Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> wrote: > In the future (read, next release) the SDK will likely have reference > to the containers, so this will have to be part of the release. Who is working on this change? Could they help with figuring out the publishing the containers part? > But I > agree for 2.13 it should be more about figuring out the process and > not necessarily holding back. > > On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 7:42 PM Ankur Goenka <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > +1 > > We can release the images with 2.13 but we should not block 2.13 release > for this. > > > > On Mon, May 27, 2019, 8:39 AM Thomas Weise <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> > >> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 6:56 AM Ismaël Mejía <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> +1 > >>> > >>> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 3:35 PM Maximilian Michels <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > > >>> > +1 > >>> > > >>> > On 27.05.19 14:04, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > >>> > > Sounds like everyone's onboard with the plan. Any chance we could > >>> > > publish these for the upcoming 2.13 release? > >>> > > > >>> > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 6:29 PM Łukasz Gajowy <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >> > >>> > >> +1 to have a registry for images accessible to anyone. For > snapshot images, I agree that gcr + apache-beam-testing project seems a > good and easy way to start with. > >>> > >> > >>> > >> Łukasz > >>> > >> > >>> > >> wt., 22 sty 2019 o 19:43 Mark Liu <[email protected]> > napisał(a): > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> +1 to have an official Beam released container image. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Also I would propose to add a verification step to (or after) > the release process to do smoke check. Python have ValidatesContainer test > that runs basic pipeline using newly built container for verification. > Other sdk languages can do similar thing or add a common framework. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Mark > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 5:56 AM Alan Myrvold < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> +1 This would be great. gcr.io seems like a good option for > snapshots due to the permissions from jenkins to upload and ability to keep > snapshots around. > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 6:51 PM Ruoyun Huang <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> +1 This would be a great thing to have. > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 6:11 PM Ankur Goenka < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> grc.io seems to be a good option. Given that we don't need > the hosting server name in the image name makes it easily changeable later. > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> Docker container for Apache Flink is named "flink" and they > have different tags for different releases and configurations > https://hub.docker.com/_/flink .We can follow a similar model and can > name the image as "beam" (beam doesn't seem to be taken on docker hub) and > use tags to distinguish Java/Python/Go and versions etc. > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> Tags will look like: > >>> > >>>>>> java-SNAPSHOT > >>> > >>>>>> java-2.10.1 > >>> > >>>>>> python2-SNAPSHOT > >>> > >>>>>> python2-2.10.1 > >>> > >>>>>> go-SNAPSHOT > >>> > >>>>>> go-2.10.1 > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 5:56 PM Ahmet Altay <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>> For snapshots, we could use gcr.io. Permission would not be > a problem since Jenkins is already correctly setup. The cost will be > covered under apache-beam-testing project. And since this is only for > snapshots, it will be only for temporary artifacts not for release > artifacts. > >>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 5:50 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>> +1, releasing containers is a useful process that we need > to build in Beam and it is required for FnApi users. Among other reasons, > having officially-released Beam SDK harness container images will make it > easier for users to do simple customizations to container images, as they > will be able to use container image released by Beam as a base image. > >>> > >>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>> Good point about potential storage limitations on Bintray. > With Beam Release cadence we may quickly exceed the 10 GB quota. It may > also affect our decisions as to which images we want to release, for > example: do we want to only release one container image with Python 3 > interpreter, or do we want to release a container image for each Python 3 > minor version that Beam is compatible with. > >>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>> Probably worth a separate discussion. I would favor first > releasing a python 3 compatible version before figuring out how we would > target multiple python 3 versions. > >>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 5:48 PM Ankur Goenka < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 5:37 PM Ahmet Altay < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 5:28 PM Ankur Goenka < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> - Could we start from snapshots first and then do it for > releases? > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> +1, releasing snapsots first makes sense to me. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> - For snapshots, do we need to clean old containers > after a while? Otherwise I guess we will accumulate lots of containers. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> For snap shots we can maintain a single snapshot image > from git HEAD daily. Docker has the internal image container id which > changes everytime an image is changed and pulls new images as needed. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>> There is a potential use this may not work with. If a > user picks up a snaphsot build and want to use it until the next release > arrives. I guess in that case the user can copy the snapshotted container > image and rely on that. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>> Yes, that should be reasonable. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> - Do we also need additional code changes for snapshots > and releases to default to these specific containers? There could be a > version based mechanism to resolve the correct container to use. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The current image defaults have username in it. We > should be ok by just updating the default image url to published image url. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> We should also check for pricing and details about > Apache-Bintray agreement before pushing images and changing defaults. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>> There is information on bintray's pricing page about open > source projects [1]. I do not know if there is a special apache-bintray > agreement or not. If there is no special agreement there is a 10GB storage > limit for using bintray. > >>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>> As each image can easily run into Gigs, 10GB might not be > sufficient for future proofing. > >>> > >>>>>>>>> We can also register docker image to docker image registry > and not have bintray in the name to later host images on a different vendor > for future proofing. > >>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>> [1] > https://bintray.com/account/pricing?tab=account&type=pricing > >>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 5:11 PM Ahmet Altay < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> This sounds like a good idea. Some questions: > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> - Could we start from snapshots first and then do it > for releases? > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> - For snapshots, do we need to clean old containers > after a while? Otherwise I guess we will accumulate lots of containers. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> - Do we also need additional code changes for snapshots > and releases to default to these specific containers? There could be a > version based mechanism to resolve the correct container to use. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 4:42 PM Ankur Goenka < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi All, > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As portability/FnApi is taking shape and are > compatible with ULR and Flink. I wanted to discuss the release plan release > of SDKHarness Docker images. Of-course users can create their own images > but it will be useful to have a default image available out of box. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Pre build image are a must for making FnApi available > for users and not just the developers. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The other purpose of these images is to be server as > base image layer for building custom images. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache already have bintray repositories for beam. > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bintray.com/apache/beam-snapshots-docker > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bintray.com/apache/beam-docker > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Shall we start pushing Python/Java/Go SDK Harness > containers to https://bintray.com/apache/beam-docker for beam release and > maintain daily snapshot at > https://bintray.com/apache/beam-snapshots-docker ? > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ankur > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> -- > >>> > >>>>> ================ > >>> > >>>>> Ruoyun Huang > >>> > >>>>> >
