+1, agree that moving current image name to tags is a non-starter. Thanks
for driving this Hannah. Let us know what they say about repo creation.
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 1:16 PM Udi Meiri <eh...@google.com> wrote:
> SG +1
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 12:59 PM Hannah Jiang <hannahji...@google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I have done some research about images released under apache namespace at
>> docker hub, and here is my proposal.
>>
>> Currently, we are using apachebeam as our namespace and each image has
>> its own repository. Version number is used to tag the images.
>> ie: apachebeam/python2.7_sdk:2.19.0, apachebeam/flink1.9_job_server:2.19.0
>>
>> Now we are migrating to apache namespace and docker hub doesn't support
>> nested repository names, so we cannot use
>> apache/beam/{image-desc}:{version}.
>> Instead, I propose to use *apache/beam-{image_desc}:{version}* as our
>> repository name.
>> ie: apache/beam-python2.7_sdk:2.19.0,
>> apache/beam-flink1.9_job_server:2.19.0
>> => When a user searches for *apache/beam* at docker hub, it will list
>> all the repositories we deployed with apache/beam-, so no concerns that
>> some released images are missed by users.
>> => Repository names give insights to the users which repositories they
>> should use.
>> => A downside with this approach is we need to create a new repository
>> whenever we release a new image, time and effort needed for this is
>> pending, I am contacting apache docker hub management team.
>>
>> I have considered using beam as repository name and moving image name and
>> version to tags, (ie: apache/beam:python3.7_sdk_2.19.0), which means put
>> all images to a single repository, however, this approach has some
>> downsides.
>> => When a user searches for apache/beam, only one repository is returned.
>> Users need to use tags to identify which images they should use. Since we
>> release images with new tags for each version, it will overwhelm the users
>> and give them an impression that the images are not organized well. It's
>> also difficult to know what kind of images we deployed.
>> => With both image name and version included at tags, it is a little bit
>> more complicated to maintain the code.
>> => There is no correct answer which image the latest tag should point to.
>>
>> Are there any concerns with this proposal?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Hannah
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 4:19 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:33 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:32 PM Ankur Goenka <goe...@google.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Also curious to know if apache provide any infra support fro projects
>>>>> under Apache umbrella and any quota limits they might have.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> Maybe Hannah can ask with an infra ticket?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 2:26 PM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> One downside is that, unlike many of these projects, we release a
>>>>>> dozen or so containers. Is there exactly (and only) one level of
>>>>>> namespacing/nesting we can leverage here? (This isn't a blocker, but
>>>>>> something to consider.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> After a quick search, I could not find a way to use more than one level
>>>> of repositories. We can use the naming scheme we currently use to help
>>>> with. Our repositories are named as apachebeam/X, we could start using
>>>> apache/beam/X.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:06 PM Hannah Jiang <hannahji...@google.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Thanks Ahmet for proposing it.
>>>>>> > I will take it and work towards v2.19.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> Missed this part. Thank you Hannah!
>>>
>>>
>>>> >
>>>>>> > Hannah
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 1:50 PM Kyle Weaver <kcwea...@google.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> It'd be nice to have the clout/official sheen of apache attached
>>>>>> to our containers. Although getting the required permissions might add
>>>>>> some
>>>>>> small overhead to the release process. For example, yesterday, when we
>>>>>> needed to create new repositories (not just update existing ones), since
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> have top-level ownership of the apachebeam organization, it was quick and
>>>>>> easy to add them. I imagine we'd have had to get approval from someone
>>>>>> outside the project to do that under the apache org. But this won't need
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> happen very often, so it's probably not that big a deal.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 1:40 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Hi all,
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> I saw recent progress on the containers and wanted to bring this
>>>>>> question to the attention of the dev list.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Would it be possible to use the official ASF dockerhub
>>>>>> organization for new Beam container releases? Concretely, starting from
>>>>>> 2.19 could we release Beam containers to
>>>>>> https://hub.docker.com/u/apache instead of
>>>>>> https://hub.docker.com/u/apachebeam ?
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Ahmet
>>>>>>
>>>>>
