On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Reading through the ASF policy on releases[3], this looks to me like a > violation of the policy of only making releases available outside of the > development community.
A version of this question was raised when I was asking how soon ASF can have its own Docker registry (the discussion was on infra@) Basically it boils down to the fact that as a developer and tester on the project having a Docker image that I can simply docker run to test/etc. has become part of my daily routine. This is as useful as having a -NIGHTLY snapshot in the Maven repo. > 1) The short version of the ASF policy is that a project must not encourage > end users to use anything other than releases that have been voted on by a > PMC (and for incubating projects the IPMC). Sure. I'd agree with you that this is the question of labeling. How to clearly label Docker artifacts not intended for downstream consumption the same way we do with -SNAPSHOT Maven artifacts would be a good discussion to be had on general@incubator > 2) The Docker Hub is external to the foundation, generally accessible to > those outside of the development community, and expressly geared towards > pushing to downstream users. I don't agree with the last statement. In fact, 50% of what I use Docker images within ASF projects is build automation. This has nothing to do with using the software as a downstream user. > Docker Hub can also be limited to distributing images just within a > development team, however you appear to be pointing those outside of the > dev@geode list at the image. That is a good point. > 3) You have a wiki page that details making use of the image on Docker > Hub[4]. > > That page is a subpage of a wiki section entitled "Develop", so it might be > intended for dev@geode use, but it is not obvious from the page. > Additionally, your public facing twitter account posted a link to said > page[5]. > > 4) You have a public facing blog post that points folks to both the Docker > Hub image and a direct download of a nightly build tarball[6]. > > ---- > > Please clean all of this up. Some of it will be cleaned up and updated, some of it requires further discussion on general@ I'll bring the discussion there on Mon or so. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. > I can empathize with the desire for a faster > feedback cycle with end users. As many at the ASF, I'm a proponent of tight > feedback cycles; but the apparent conflict between foundation policy and > this kind of publishing means I have to push eager communities (like > yourselves and the NiFi community) to constrain themselves to properly PMC > blessed releases. Personally, I see these cases as an opportunity to make sure that our policy is in support of of the foundation goals AND the goals of the software communities we serve. I wish NiFi concerns were brought up to the attention of IPMC. Thanks, Roman.
