On 16/05/17 14:08 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Flavio Percoco wrote:From a release perspective, as Doug mentioned, we've avoided releasing projects in any kind of built form. This was also one of the concerns I raised when working on the proposal to support other programming languages. The problem of releasing built images goes beyond the infrastructure requirements. It's the message and the guarantees implied with the built product itself that are the concern here. And I tend to agree with Doug that this might be a problem for us as a community. Unfortunately, putting your name, Michal, as contact point is not enough. Kolla is not the only project producing container images and we need to be consistent in the way we release these images.Nothing prevents people for building their own images and uploading them to dockerhub. Having this as part of the OpenStack's pipeline is a problem.I totally subscribe to the concerns around publishing binaries (under any form), and the expectations in terms of security maintenance that it would set on the publisher. At the same time, we need to have images available, for convenience and testing. So what is the best way to achieve that without setting strong security maintenance expectations for the OpenStack community ? We have several options: 1/ Have third-parties publish images It is the current situation. The issue is that the Kolla team (and likely others) would rather automate the process and use OpenStack infrastructure for it. 2/ Have third-parties publish images, but through OpenStack infra This would allow to automate the process, but it would be a bit weird to use common infra resources to publish in a private repo. 3/ Publish transient (per-commit or daily) images A "daily build" (especially if you replace it every day) would set relatively-limited expectations in terms of maintenance. It would end up picking up security updates in upstream layers, even if not immediately. 4/ Publish images and own them Staff release / VMT / stable team in a way that lets us properly own those images and publish them officially. Personally I think (4) is not realistic. I think we could make (3) work, and I prefer it to (2). If all else fails, we should keep (1).
Agreed #4 is a bit unrealistic. Not sure I understand the difference between #2 and #3. Is it just the cadence? I'd prefer for these builds to have a daily cadence because it sets the expectations w.r.t maintenance right: "These images are daily builds and not certified releases. For stable builds you're better off building it yourself" Flavio -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
