On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Clemens Stolle <clemens.sto...@fastmail.com> wrote: >> Am 25.01.2016 um 11:44 schrieb Alexander Shorin <kxe...@gmail.com>: >> >> Hi Clemens! >> >> My own opinion below: >> >> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Clemens Stolle >> <clemens.sto...@fastmail.com> wrote: >>> - Should we use ubuntu and the PPA instead of building from source? The >>> ubuntu base image is 60MB bigger than debian's. >> >> We don't provide any PPA builds to use, especially for 2.0, today. >> Ubuntu vs debian - doesn't matter for me. > > I was referring to this PPA > https://launchpad.net/~couchdb/+archive/ubuntu/stable > Isn’t it maintained by the CouchDB project? I guess my question is if it were > preferable to use such a pre-built package instead of building from source.
Well, Dave is indeed a member of CouchDB team, but I cannot recall that we discussed any PPA during release preparation. I added him to CC, so may be he can clarify this moment. Currently, all our official artefacts are listed on website download section. >>> - Building from git branches is not feasible in official images. Are there >>> tags or pre-release snapshots for 2.0? >> >> There was developer-preview-2.0 branch for that purpose, but it's >> outdated for now and quickly becomes after each rebase. For current >> state of 2.0 I don't see any point to add special intermediate tags >> for reproduceable builds. >> Also, it may be a bit rushy to include 2.0 image into officials as >> people may accidentally thought that this version is released while >> that's not true. > > The docker image for 2.0 is currently tagged as 2.0-dev to make it clear that > it’s a developer preview. It could also be called 2.0-alpha. Maybe 2.0 isn’t > ready for the official image, but it should be docker-available somewhere to > ease testing. I have crazy idea, but tell me if it's possible to: bound 2.0-alpha image to specific git commit hash on apache/couchdb repo, but update this image on weekly basis. So, for today that will be 2.0-alpha-20160125 that points on 3619c80 commit. On the next week you publish 2.0-alpha-20160201 that points to hypothetical feeddeef commit. And so on. So, these images are get rotated, they provides reproducible builds and clearly tells you for what state they were made. Older images could be removed during rotation. Whole process could be easily automated. What do you think about this? -- ,,,^..^,,,
