In my opinion, I don't think we need to go backward in time to improve old docker images. We deploy the images when we tag a version for release and it stays that way forever just like our other release artifacts. If you want a better version of the docker image then upgrade your TinkerPop version accordingly.
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Florian Hockmann <f...@florian-hockmann.de> wrote: > > I guess he just said "new images for older versions" > > because these images do not exist yet. But once they're there, nobody > would > > ever update them again. > > Actually, I understood Jean-Baptiste's original remark on that topic as > if he wanted to really deploy new images for older versions every time > we change something about the Dockerfile to also get new features into > older versions: > > > I think we'd somehow need to find a way to redeploy all images if we > > tweak/improve the Dockerfile in a way that makes sense to also redeploy > > prior images, and not just the latest releases. > > This would work by creating a new image for an old version (like 3.2.5) > and tag that as 3.2.5. The older image that we deployed originally when > 3.2.5 was released wouldn't have that tag anymore. That way, users could > use new features we added for our Docker images also with older > TinkerPop versions, for example better options to configure the server. > > However, this approach would require us to grab build artifacts for > older TinkerPop versions and put them in a new Docker image. That would > make the build and deployment certainly a bit more difficult as we can't > simply take the build artifacts from the target directory for those > older versions. We could of course download them as they are already > deployed, but then we need a different Docker build and deployment for > older versions than for the most recent one (since we can't download the > artifacts for the most recent one from somewhere as they aren't deployed > at that point). > > Am 23.02.2018 um 17:24 schrieb Daniel Kuppitz: > > They would be static. We would checkout the release tag, build the image > > and publish it. I guess he just said "new images for older versions" > > because these images do not exist yet. But once they're there, nobody > would > > ever update them again. > > > > Cheers, > > Daniel > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Stephen Mallette <spmalle...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> these might be dumb questions, but as everyone already knows, i'm not so > >> smart about docker - could you summarize for me you would go back and > >> publish new images for older versions? why couldn't those just stay > static > >> for a release version? > >> > >> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 11:15 AM, Florian Hockmann < > f...@florian-hockmann.de > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I suggest that we at first take the simplest approach and just offer > >>> Docker images for the latest version. So we at least have some Docker > >>> images. > >>> Then we can handle publishing of new images for older versions as a > >>> second step. > >>> > >>> Is everyone ok with that approach or do you suggest dealing with that > >>> problem immediately from the start? > >>> > >>> Apart from that: I looked a bit on how we could integrate Docker into > >>> our Maven tool chain and found two Maven plugins we could use. If > anyone > >>> can provide some input for the choice of a plugin then please do so in: > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1897 > >>> > >>> Am 21.02.2018 um 16:09 schrieb Daniel Kuppitz: > >>>> If you're just playing around, testing new stuff, etc. you'll always > >> want > >>>> to have the latest version. But if you do client support (or even just > >>>> support on the mailing list) it's advantageous to have quick access to > >>>> specific older version. > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> Daniel > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:55 AM, Stephen Mallette < > >> spmalle...@gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> Do we really need to redeploy images for older TinkerPop versions? > >>>>> Wouldn't it be enough to simply provide a newer version for 3.2.z and > >>>>> 3.3.z, respectively? Why could someone not update for example from > >>> 3.2.6 to > >>>>> 3.2.7? > >>>>> > >>>>> from someone who really doesn't know what people expect with docker, > I > >>>>> would think that we wouldn't go back to maintain old images anymore > >>> than we > >>>>> would go back and change an artifact in maven central. if you want a > >>> better > >>>>> docker experience then you would upgrade to the latest version > >> TinkerPop > >>>>> offered. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 3:06 AM, Florian Hockmann < > >>> f...@florian-hockmann.de> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Looks like I didn't really think this through yesterday, but it > >>> probably > >>>>>> doesn't really make sense to transfer the existing Dockerfiles as > >> they > >>>>> only > >>>>>> download the zip archives from our homepage and extract them. For > >> this > >>> to > >>>>>> work, we of course already need those archives to be in place which > >>> means > >>>>>> that we can't deploy the Docker images together with the rest of > >>>>> TinkerPop. > >>>>>> So, I think that it makes more sense to create new Dockerfiles that > >>> take > >>>>>> the build artifacts from the Console and Server. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I think we'd somehow need to find a way to redeploy all images if > we > >>>>>> tweak/improve the Dockerfile in a way that makes sense to also > >> redeploy > >>>>>> prior images, and not just the latest releases. > >>>>>> Do we really need to redeploy images for older TinkerPop versions? > >>>>>> Wouldn't it be enough to simply provide a newer version for 3.2.z > and > >>>>>> 3.3.z, respectively? Why could someone not update for example from > >>> 3.2.6 > >>>>> to > >>>>>> 3.2.7? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Anyhow, I just created a ticket for this: > https://issues.apache.org/ > >>>>>> jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1897 so we can discuss the concrete > >>> implementation > >>>>>> over there. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > >>>>>> Von: Jean-Baptiste Musso [mailto:jbmu...@gmail.com] > >>>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. Februar 2018 22:02 > >>>>>> An: dev@tinkerpop.apache.org > >>>>>> Betreff: Re: [TinkerPop] Re: Docker images: gremlin-server and > >>>>>> gremlin-console > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sure, +1 on transferring the Dockerfile to TinkerPop. That could be > >>> part > >>>>>> of the current deployment process. > >>>>>> I think we'd somehow need to find a way to redeploy all images if we > >>>>>> tweak/improve the Dockerfile in a way that makes sense to also > >> redeploy > >>>>>> prior images, and not just the latest releases. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Jean-Baptiste > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:30 PM, Florian Hockmann < > >>>>> f...@florian-hockmann.de> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks to a ticket where someone mentioned that he uses Docker > >> images > >>>>>>> of the Gremlin Server (TINKERPOP-1893 > >>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1893>), I noticed > >>>>>>> that there aren't any up-to-date Docker images for Gremlin Server > or > >>>>>>> Console on hub.docker.com: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The highest version for Gremlin Server is 3.3.0 from this image: > >>>>>>> https://hub.docker.com/r/bricaud/gremlin-server/ > >>>>>>> and for Gremlin Console it's still version 3.2.4 that Jean-Baptiste > >>>>>>> mentioned in the first post of this thread: > >>>>>>> https://hub.docker.com/r/jbmusso/gremlin-console/ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So, I wanted to ask: Are there any updates on this? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Can't we as a first step simply include the Docker images from > >>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste into our main repo and integrate it into our usual > >> build > >>>>>>> and deployment process so we always release Docker images with each > >>>>>>> release? (Assuming that Jean-Baptiste is willing to transfer the > >>>>>>> images to TinkerPop.) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> We can still add more advanced features like an easier > configuration > >>>>>>> of things like REST vs WebSockets or loading of datasets later when > >> we > >>>>>>> have initial versions of both Docker images in place. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Am 05.07.2017 um 17:02 schrieb Stephen Mallette: > >>>>>>>> Nice Josh - thanks for the update on that. Please keep us > informed. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Josh Perryman < > j...@experoinc.com > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> I worked on this a little over the holiday weekend. I've got a > >>>>>>>>> gremlin-console image based on OpenJDK:8 and one that uses the > >>>>>>>>> Alpine version. They allow you to specify the TinkerPop version > as > >>>>>>>>> a command > >>>>>>> line > >>>>>>>>> argument and support anything that's available on > >>>>>>>>> https://archive.apache.org/dist/tinkerpop/. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> That was trivial, and not really of high value. I'm working on > >>>>>>>>> gremlin-server images now. My goal is to have server images which > >>>>>>>>> allow > >>>>>>> you > >>>>>>>>> to specify: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> + Version (if on https://archive.apache.org/dist/tinkerpop/) > >>>>>>>>> + Data set (any one included in the distribution) > >>>>>>>>> + Access protocol (WebSocket or REST) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The idea is that you can just start the image and have a local > >>>>>>>>> running gremlin-server in any version, with some data loaded. > This > >>>>>>>>> could also be the basis for a gremlin-server microservice. I also > >>>>>>>>> want to have one > >>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>> has both console & server which is more suitable for training. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> But I don't think that I'll have time to work through all of that > >>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>> some > >>>>>>>>> weeks, perhaps late July, or more likely in August. When I get > >>>>>>>>> these to > >>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>> usable point with legible instructions, I'll follow up with this > >>>>>>>>> thread > >>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>> coordinating with Apache and getting the Dockerfiles hosted > >>>>> properly. > >>>>>>>>> *Josh Perryman* > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> mobile: (713) 569-6533 > >>>>>>>>> Twitter <https://twitter.com/JoshPerryman> / *LinkedIn* > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Mallette > >>>>>>>>> <spmalle...@gmail.com > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I really don't know Docker too well so I can't really drive this > >>>>> one. > >>>>>>> I'm > >>>>>>>>>> not sure I understand if what Apache is offering us is suitable > >>>>>>>>>> for the needs TinkerPop has wrt Docker. Any volunteers willing > to > >>>>>>>>>> pick this up > >>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>> drive this discussion forward? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Stephen Mallette < > >>>>>>> spmalle...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> With help from Humbedooh aka Daniel Gruno, I've got in contact > >>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>> folks > >>>>>>>>>>> at Apache Infrastructure regarding projects putting stuff on > >>>>>>>>>>> Docker > >>>>>>>>> Hub. > >>>>>>>>>>> Here was the basic reply: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> We do support the use of Docker Hub under the ASF banner: > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://hub.docker.com/u/apache/ The policy for releases on > >>>>>>>>>>>> there is still being worked out, but at this moment if you > have > >>>>>>>>>>>> a dockerfile/ repo we can add that to our org for automated > >>>>>>>>>>>> building. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Just file a ticket on the INFRA JIRA > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapi > >>>>>>>>>>> dView=25&projectKey=INFRA > >>>>>>>>>>>> and we can add that repo to the org. > >>>>>>>>>>> Is that helpful for what we're talking about here? Are there > >>>>>>>>>>> other questions to ask? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:36 AM, Florian Hockmann < > >>>>>>>>> f...@florian-hockmann.de > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I think official images would be a very good idea as there > >> exist > >>>>>>>>>>>> currently a lot of images, especially for Gremlin Server. > Users > >>>>>>>>>> typically > >>>>>>>>>>>> search for the official image or just take the image with the > >>>>>>>>>>>> most > >>>>>>>>>> pulls. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Images published directly by TinkerPop would get the most > >>>>>>>>>>>> attention > >>>>>>> so > >>>>>>>>>>>> users don't end up with some image that isn't actively > >>>>> maintained. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Another advantage of integrating the images in TinkerPop would > >>>>>>>>> probably > >>>>>>>>>>>> be that the deployment could be integrated into TinkerPop's > >>>>>>>>>>>> usual > >>>>>>>>>> release > >>>>>>>>>>>> cycle. So new images can be published directly for each new > >>>>>> version. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Am Dienstag, 6. Juni 2017 18:39:09 UTC+2 schrieb Stephen > >>>>> Mallette: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be interesting to anyone for TinkerPop to have an > >>>>>>>>>>>>> official docker image? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Benjamin Ricaud < > >>>>>>>>> benjami...@gmail.com > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Jean-Baptiste, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have also done a container for the gremlin-server 3.2.4, > >>>>>>>>> configured > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be used with gremlin-python: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://hub.docker.com/r/bricaud/gremlin-server/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I noticed that you do not need the IP trick for the server > to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be accessed. If you set > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> host: 0 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your gremlin-conf.yaml, (and open the port with -p > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8182:8182) > >>>>>>> you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can access the server. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (see my conf files on the github repo). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Benjamin > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le jeudi 1 juin 2017 00:37:07 UTC+2, Jean-Baptiste Musso a > >>>>> écrit > >>>>>> : > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear TinkerPop, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I published a couple automatically built Docker images for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gremlin-server and gremlin-console (current image tags: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latest, > >>>>>>>>>> 3.2.4, 3.2 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and 3): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://hub.docker.com/r/jbmusso/gremlin-server/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://hub.docker.com/r/jbmusso/gremlin-console/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I built these because I needed to quickly start different > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations of gremlin-server when developing the > >>>>>>>>>> gremlin-javascript > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> client. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Source repository: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jbmusso/docker-tinkerpop > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Start gremlin-server with: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> docker run -p 8182:8182 jbmusso/gremlin-server:3.2.4 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Defaults to conf/gremlin-server.yaml within that container, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or > >>>>>>> pass > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another .yaml file: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> docker run -p 8182:8182 jbmusso/gremlin-server:3.2.4 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conf/gremlin-server-modern.yaml > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mounting your own config .yaml file with docker run -v > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument > >>>>>>>>>> should > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also work (untested). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can play with the console this way (make sure you run > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the > >>>>>>>>>> -it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flags so Docker don't quit and actually lets you type > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commands > >>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>> your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shell): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> docker run -it jbmusso/gremlin-console:3.2.4 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to execute a file located on your host from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within a gremin-console container (the following assumes > >> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foobar.groovy > >>>>>>>>>> file > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists in your $HOME dir): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> docker run -it -v ~/foobar.groovy:/script/foobar.groovy > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jbmusso/gremlin-console:3.2.4 -e /script/foobar.groovy > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Google Groups "Gremlin-users" group. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails > from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it, > >>>>>>>>> send > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> an email to gremlin-user...@googlegroups.com. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit > >>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/ms > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gid/gremlin-users/c8141999-2e9d-4fd3-a763-5630866e5c6b% > 40goo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> glegroups.com > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gremlin-users/c8141999- > >>>>>>>>>> 2e9d-4fd3-a763-5630866e5c6b%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium= > >>>>>>>>>> email&utm_source=footer> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> . > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the > >>>>>>>>>>>> Google > >>>>>>>>>> Groups > >>>>>>>>>>>> "Gremlin-users" group. > >>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from > >>>>>>>>>>>> it, > >>>>>>> send > >>>>>>>>>> an > >>>>>>>>>>>> email to gremlin-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > >>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit > >>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/ms > >>>>>>>>>>>> gid/gremlin-users/8cf01027-2ef6-48d5-bc2a-34facea9c0f8%40 > >>>>>>>>>> googlegroups.com > >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gremlin-users/8cf01027- > >>>>>>>>>> 2ef6-48d5-bc2a-34facea9c0f8%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium= > >>>>>>>>>> email&utm_source=footer> > >>>>>>>>>>>> . > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>> > > >
