You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@storm.apache.org by Julien Nioche <jn...@apache.org> on 2023/12/11 14:57:07 UTC
[VOTE] Docker images for Apache Storm
Dear Storm community,
There was a recent discussion on the dev list [1] about a roadmap for the
next release (major or minor). One of the items was to release Docker
images for Apache Storm ourselves. There are Docker images but maintained
by a third party [2]. By managing the images ourselves, we would have more
control on when the images are available and also be able to fix issues
quicker.
The first step is to ask Infra to give our project seats on DockerHub [3].
Could we have a quick vote to make sure everyone is happy to go ahead
with this?
*[+1] publish Docker images ourselves and ask infra for seats to do so on
Dockerhub*
*or *
*[-1] do not publish Docker images ourselves?*
The vote is open for the next 72 hours and will finish on Thursday,
December 14 at 3PM UTC.
Best regards,
Julien Nioche
[1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/g78xg0k1m86m3o9jtj4g6p4cvvz3dhgr
[2] https://github.com/31z4/storm-docker
[3] https://infra.apache.org/docker-hub-policy.html
Re: [VOTE] Docker images for Apache Storm
Posted by Xin Wang <da...@gmail.com>.
+1
Bipin Prasad <bi...@yahoo.com.invalid>于2023年12月12日 周二21:26写道：
> [+1] for publishing Storm docker images as part of Storm project
>
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023, 1:18 AM, Julien Nioche <
> lists.digitalpebble@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [0] is of course a valid option, just like in any vote in any ASF-related
> project
>
> Thanks
>
>
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 at 09:01, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> avermeerbergen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I would have voted [0] if possible, but only [+1] or [-1] are proposed ;)
> >
> > Indeed, regarding Docker images, I tend to be reluctant to use
> > community images appart from OS base ones and built mine based on my
> > actual needs which are:
> > 1. To use a specific JVM (I'm more found of OpenJ9 - aka IBM Semeru
> > JRE than HotSpot - aka no matter which)
> > 2. To package only what's needed in my Docker images. Given that the
> > best practive in the word of containers in to have one process per
> > container, I would build a image with only Storm process, another one
> > with only Storm UI, etc (one tickly case is how to mix supervisor and
> > logview ; and by the way worker processes should be spawned by Storm
> > process acting as a k8s operator, to be really "cloud native" with k8s
> > stack...)
> >
> > If the goal of the Docker image for which the vote is ran is to
> > provide an all-in-one image embedding all Storm processes, then I'm
> > neutral on it, it could help newbies in evaluating Storm...
> >
> > Given that I'm so undecided, I just confirm [0]
> > (sorry for putting a mess in this vote)
> >
> > Alexandre
> >
> > Le mar. 12 déc. 2023 à 08:31, Richard Zowalla <rz...@apache.org> a écrit
> :
> > >
> > > +1 (think it would be good to "officially" be responsible and
> > > distribute those on our own instead of relying on 3rd party repos)
> > >
> > > Am Montag, dem 11.12.2023 um 14:57 +0000 schrieb Julien Nioche:
> > > > Dear Storm community,
> > > >
> > > > There was a recent discussion on the dev list [1] about a roadmap for
> > > > the
> > > > next release (major or minor). One of the items was to release Docker
> > > > images for Apache Storm ourselves. There are Docker images but
> > > > maintained
> > > > by a third party [2]. By managing the images ourselves, we would have
> > > > more
> > > > control on when the images are available and also be able to fix
> > > > issues
> > > > quicker.
> > > >
> > > > The first step is to ask Infra to give our project seats on DockerHub
> > > > [3].
> > > >
> > > > Could we have a quick vote to make sure everyone is happy to go ahead
> > > > with this?
> > > >
> > > > *[+1] publish Docker images ourselves and ask infra for seats to do
> > > > so on
> > > > Dockerhub*
> > > >
> > > > *or *
> > > >
> > > > *[-1] do not publish Docker images ourselves?*
> > > >
> > > > The vote is open for the next 72 hours and will finish on Thursday,
> > > > December 14 at 3PM UTC.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > > Julien Nioche
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/g78xg0k1m86m3o9jtj4g6p4cvvz3dhgr
> > > > [2] https://github.com/31z4/storm-docker
> > > > [3] https://infra.apache.org/docker-hub-policy.html
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> *Julien Nioche *
>
>
> digitalpebble.com <http://www.digitalpebble.com/>
>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Docker images for Apache Storm
Posted by Bipin Prasad <bi...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
[+1] for publishing Storm docker images as part of Storm project
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023, 1:18 AM, Julien Nioche <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
[0] is of course a valid option, just like in any vote in any ASF-related
project
Thanks
On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 at 09:01, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
avermeerbergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would have voted [0] if possible, but only [+1] or [-1] are proposed ;)
>
> Indeed, regarding Docker images, I tend to be reluctant to use
> community images appart from OS base ones and built mine based on my
> actual needs which are:
> 1. To use a specific JVM (I'm more found of OpenJ9 - aka IBM Semeru
> JRE than HotSpot - aka no matter which)
> 2. To package only what's needed in my Docker images. Given that the
> best practive in the word of containers in to have one process per
> container, I would build a image with only Storm process, another one
> with only Storm UI, etc (one tickly case is how to mix supervisor and
> logview ; and by the way worker processes should be spawned by Storm
> process acting as a k8s operator, to be really "cloud native" with k8s
> stack...)
>
> If the goal of the Docker image for which the vote is ran is to
> provide an all-in-one image embedding all Storm processes, then I'm
> neutral on it, it could help newbies in evaluating Storm...
>
> Given that I'm so undecided, I just confirm [0]
> (sorry for putting a mess in this vote)
>
> Alexandre
>
> Le mar. 12 déc. 2023 à 08:31, Richard Zowalla <rz...@apache.org> a écrit :
> >
> > +1 (think it would be good to "officially" be responsible and
> > distribute those on our own instead of relying on 3rd party repos)
> >
> > Am Montag, dem 11.12.2023 um 14:57 +0000 schrieb Julien Nioche:
> > > Dear Storm community,
> > >
> > > There was a recent discussion on the dev list [1] about a roadmap for
> > > the
> > > next release (major or minor). One of the items was to release Docker
> > > images for Apache Storm ourselves. There are Docker images but
> > > maintained
> > > by a third party [2]. By managing the images ourselves, we would have
> > > more
> > > control on when the images are available and also be able to fix
> > > issues
> > > quicker.
> > >
> > > The first step is to ask Infra to give our project seats on DockerHub
> > > [3].
> > >
> > > Could we have a quick vote to make sure everyone is happy to go ahead
> > > with this?
> > >
> > > *[+1] publish Docker images ourselves and ask infra for seats to do
> > > so on
> > > Dockerhub*
> > >
> > > *or *
> > >
> > > *[-1] do not publish Docker images ourselves?*
> > >
> > > The vote is open for the next 72 hours and will finish on Thursday,
> > > December 14 at 3PM UTC.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Julien Nioche
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/g78xg0k1m86m3o9jtj4g6p4cvvz3dhgr
> > > [2] https://github.com/31z4/storm-docker
> > > [3] https://infra.apache.org/docker-hub-policy.html
> >
>
--
*Julien Nioche *
digitalpebble.com <http://www.digitalpebble.com/>
Re: [VOTE] Docker images for Apache Storm
Posted by Julien Nioche <li...@gmail.com>.
[0] is of course a valid option, just like in any vote in any ASF-related
project
Thanks
On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 at 09:01, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
avermeerbergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would have voted [0] if possible, but only [+1] or [-1] are proposed ;)
>
> Indeed, regarding Docker images, I tend to be reluctant to use
> community images appart from OS base ones and built mine based on my
> actual needs which are:
> 1. To use a specific JVM (I'm more found of OpenJ9 - aka IBM Semeru
> JRE than HotSpot - aka no matter which)
> 2. To package only what's needed in my Docker images. Given that the
> best practive in the word of containers in to have one process per
> container, I would build a image with only Storm process, another one
> with only Storm UI, etc (one tickly case is how to mix supervisor and
> logview ; and by the way worker processes should be spawned by Storm
> process acting as a k8s operator, to be really "cloud native" with k8s
> stack...)
>
> If the goal of the Docker image for which the vote is ran is to
> provide an all-in-one image embedding all Storm processes, then I'm
> neutral on it, it could help newbies in evaluating Storm...
>
> Given that I'm so undecided, I just confirm [0]
> (sorry for putting a mess in this vote)
>
> Alexandre
>
> Le mar. 12 déc. 2023 à 08:31, Richard Zowalla <rz...@apache.org> a écrit :
> >
> > +1 (think it would be good to "officially" be responsible and
> > distribute those on our own instead of relying on 3rd party repos)
> >
> > Am Montag, dem 11.12.2023 um 14:57 +0000 schrieb Julien Nioche:
> > > Dear Storm community,
> > >
> > > There was a recent discussion on the dev list [1] about a roadmap for
> > > the
> > > next release (major or minor). One of the items was to release Docker
> > > images for Apache Storm ourselves. There are Docker images but
> > > maintained
> > > by a third party [2]. By managing the images ourselves, we would have
> > > more
> > > control on when the images are available and also be able to fix
> > > issues
> > > quicker.
> > >
> > > The first step is to ask Infra to give our project seats on DockerHub
> > > [3].
> > >
> > > Could we have a quick vote to make sure everyone is happy to go ahead
> > > with this?
> > >
> > > *[+1] publish Docker images ourselves and ask infra for seats to do
> > > so on
> > > Dockerhub*
> > >
> > > *or *
> > >
> > > *[-1] do not publish Docker images ourselves?*
> > >
> > > The vote is open for the next 72 hours and will finish on Thursday,
> > > December 14 at 3PM UTC.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Julien Nioche
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/g78xg0k1m86m3o9jtj4g6p4cvvz3dhgr
> > > [2] https://github.com/31z4/storm-docker
> > > [3] https://infra.apache.org/docker-hub-policy.html
> >
>
--
*Julien Nioche *
digitalpebble.com <http://www.digitalpebble.com/>
Re: [VOTE] Docker images for Apache Storm
Posted by Alexandre Vermeerbergen <av...@gmail.com>.
Hello,
I would have voted [0] if possible, but only [+1] or [-1] are proposed ;)
Indeed, regarding Docker images, I tend to be reluctant to use
community images appart from OS base ones and built mine based on my
actual needs which are:
1. To use a specific JVM (I'm more found of OpenJ9 - aka IBM Semeru
JRE than HotSpot - aka no matter which)
2. To package only what's needed in my Docker images. Given that the
best practive in the word of containers in to have one process per
container, I would build a image with only Storm process, another one
with only Storm UI, etc (one tickly case is how to mix supervisor and
logview ; and by the way worker processes should be spawned by Storm
process acting as a k8s operator, to be really "cloud native" with k8s
stack...)
If the goal of the Docker image for which the vote is ran is to
provide an all-in-one image embedding all Storm processes, then I'm
neutral on it, it could help newbies in evaluating Storm...
Given that I'm so undecided, I just confirm [0]
(sorry for putting a mess in this vote)
Alexandre
Le mar. 12 déc. 2023 à 08:31, Richard Zowalla <rz...@apache.org> a écrit :
>
> +1 (think it would be good to "officially" be responsible and
> distribute those on our own instead of relying on 3rd party repos)
>
> Am Montag, dem 11.12.2023 um 14:57 +0000 schrieb Julien Nioche:
> > Dear Storm community,
> >
> > There was a recent discussion on the dev list [1] about a roadmap for
> > the
> > next release (major or minor). One of the items was to release Docker
> > images for Apache Storm ourselves. There are Docker images but
> > maintained
> > by a third party [2]. By managing the images ourselves, we would have
> > more
> > control on when the images are available and also be able to fix
> > issues
> > quicker.
> >
> > The first step is to ask Infra to give our project seats on DockerHub
> > [3].
> >
> > Could we have a quick vote to make sure everyone is happy to go ahead
> > with this?
> >
> > *[+1] publish Docker images ourselves and ask infra for seats to do
> > so on
> > Dockerhub*
> >
> > *or *
> >
> > *[-1] do not publish Docker images ourselves?*
> >
> > The vote is open for the next 72 hours and will finish on Thursday,
> > December 14 at 3PM UTC.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Julien Nioche
> >
> >
> > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/g78xg0k1m86m3o9jtj4g6p4cvvz3dhgr
> > [2] https://github.com/31z4/storm-docker
> > [3] https://infra.apache.org/docker-hub-policy.html
>
Re: [VOTE] Docker images for Apache Storm
Posted by Richard Zowalla <rz...@apache.org>.
+1 (think it would be good to "officially" be responsible and
distribute those on our own instead of relying on 3rd party repos)
Am Montag, dem 11.12.2023 um 14:57 +0000 schrieb Julien Nioche:
> Dear Storm community,
>
> There was a recent discussion on the dev list [1] about a roadmap for
> the
> next release (major or minor). One of the items was to release Docker
> images for Apache Storm ourselves. There are Docker images but
> maintained
> by a third party [2]. By managing the images ourselves, we would have
> more
> control on when the images are available and also be able to fix
> issues
> quicker.
>
> The first step is to ask Infra to give our project seats on DockerHub
> [3].
>
> Could we have a quick vote to make sure everyone is happy to go ahead
> with this?
>
> *[+1] publish Docker images ourselves and ask infra for seats to do
> so on
> Dockerhub*
>
> *or *
>
> *[-1] do not publish Docker images ourselves?*
>
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and will finish on Thursday,
> December 14 at 3PM UTC.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Julien Nioche
>
>
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/g78xg0k1m86m3o9jtj4g6p4cvvz3dhgr
> [2] https://github.com/31z4/storm-docker
> [3] https://infra.apache.org/docker-hub-policy.html
Re: [VOTE] Docker images for Apache Storm
Posted by Julien Nioche <li...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
The vote passes with
4 +1 (Richard, Bipin, Xin, myself)
1 +0 (Alexandre)
I'll go ahead and ask infra to set us up.
Thanks
Julien
On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 15:37, Julien Nioche <li...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Forgot to add my own +1
>
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 14:58, Julien Nioche <jn...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear Storm community,
>>
>> There was a recent discussion on the dev list [1] about a roadmap for the
>> next release (major or minor). One of the items was to release Docker
>> images for Apache Storm ourselves. There are Docker images but maintained
>> by a third party [2]. By managing the images ourselves, we would have more
>> control on when the images are available and also be able to fix issues
>> quicker.
>>
>> The first step is to ask Infra to give our project seats on DockerHub [3].
>>
>> Could we have a quick vote to make sure everyone is happy to go ahead
>> with this?
>>
>> *[+1] publish Docker images ourselves and ask infra for seats to do so on
>> Dockerhub*
>>
>> *or *
>>
>> *[-1] do not publish Docker images ourselves?*
>>
>> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and will finish on Thursday,
>> December 14 at 3PM UTC.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Julien Nioche
>>
>>
>> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/g78xg0k1m86m3o9jtj4g6p4cvvz3dhgr
>> [2] https://github.com/31z4/storm-docker
>> [3] https://infra.apache.org/docker-hub-policy.html
>>
>
>
> --
> *Julien Nioche *
>
>
> digitalpebble.com <http://www.digitalpebble.com/>
>
--
*Julien Nioche *
digitalpebble.com <http://www.digitalpebble.com/>
Re: [VOTE] Docker images for Apache Storm
Posted by Julien Nioche <li...@gmail.com>.
Forgot to add my own +1
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 14:58, Julien Nioche <jn...@apache.org> wrote:
> Dear Storm community,
>
> There was a recent discussion on the dev list [1] about a roadmap for the
> next release (major or minor). One of the items was to release Docker
> images for Apache Storm ourselves. There are Docker images but maintained
> by a third party [2]. By managing the images ourselves, we would have more
> control on when the images are available and also be able to fix issues
> quicker.
>
> The first step is to ask Infra to give our project seats on DockerHub [3].
>
> Could we have a quick vote to make sure everyone is happy to go ahead
> with this?
>
> *[+1] publish Docker images ourselves and ask infra for seats to do so on
> Dockerhub*
>
> *or *
>
> *[-1] do not publish Docker images ourselves?*
>
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and will finish on Thursday,
> December 14 at 3PM UTC.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Julien Nioche
>
>
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/g78xg0k1m86m3o9jtj4g6p4cvvz3dhgr
> [2] https://github.com/31z4/storm-docker
> [3] https://infra.apache.org/docker-hub-policy.html
>
--
*Julien Nioche *
digitalpebble.com <http://www.digitalpebble.com/>