Votes on tags vs docker hub requirements

[Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>]

Hi,
During the release process we are voting a 'tag' but because of docker
builder requirements we have to drop that voted tag and create a new one.
I think that we can improve this process by writing explicitly the commit
sha in the vote email so that it is clear what PMC and other
committers/contributors are voting and they are sure that this will not be
altered in the future.
I saw this in Apache Calcite vote process for instance.
We can also make an improvement to write the git sha on manifests as we are
voting on binaries (I think that the vote is really on source, not on
binaries)

This is just an idea, maybe I misunderstand the process. But in this case
it would be better not to cite the tag in the email and let people vote
only on the staged source artifacts and/or make it clearer in the email
what exactly we are going to release (binaries, sources, git sha, git
tag...)

I am not a lawyer I just want to understand what I am doing and improve
things.

Enrico
-- 


-- Enrico Olivelli

Re: Votes on tags vs docker hub requirements

[Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>]

I will send it

2017-11-30 14:29 GMT+01:00 Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org>:

> PR is enough. People can vote with their reviews.
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > For this kind of changes do we need a vote ? or is it enough a PR against
> > the release guide ?
> >
> > Enrico
> >
> > 2017-11-30 12:23 GMT+01:00 Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org>:
> >
> >> I like the idea of sending the sha in the vote. The tag changes, so
> >> it's not possible to go back and see what was voted on after release.
> >> We should provide both the sha and the tag.
> >>
> >> -Ivan
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:47 AM, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > yes. I was thinking of doing the flink way to have an official image
> repo
> >> > at docker hub.
> >> >
> >> > - Sijie
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Jia Zhai <zh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I remember that, Do you mean we do bookkeeper docker following
> zookeeper
> >> >> and flink's way?
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:19 AM, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > I think it is better to change the docker image process, leaving
> tag
> >> >> > untouched. I have raised the discussion about official docker image
> >> ago.
> >> >> > That was for addressing the issues I have seen in docker image
> >> >> generation.
> >> >> > I think we should revisit docker release process rather than tag.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Nov 29, 2017 1:29 PM, "Enrico Olivelli" <eo...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Hi,
> >> >> > > During the release process we are voting a 'tag' but because of
> >> docker
> >> >> > > builder requirements we have to drop that voted tag and create a
> new
> >> >> one.
> >> >> > > I think that we can improve this process by writing explicitly
> the
> >> >> commit
> >> >> > > sha in the vote email so that it is clear what PMC and other
> >> >> > > committers/contributors are voting and they are sure that this
> will
> >> not
> >> >> > be
> >> >> > > altered in the future.
> >> >> > > I saw this in Apache Calcite vote process for instance.
> >> >> > > We can also make an improvement to write the git sha on manifests
> >> as we
> >> >> > are
> >> >> > > voting on binaries (I think that the vote is really on source,
> not
> >> on
> >> >> > > binaries)
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > This is just an idea, maybe I misunderstand the process. But in
> this
> >> >> case
> >> >> > > it would be better not to cite the tag in the email and let
> people
> >> vote
> >> >> > > only on the staged source artifacts and/or make it clearer in the
> >> email
> >> >> > > what exactly we are going to release (binaries, sources, git sha,
> >> git
> >> >> > > tag...)
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > I am not a lawyer I just want to understand what I am doing and
> >> improve
> >> >> > > things.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Enrico
> >> >> > > --
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > -- Enrico Olivelli
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
>

Re: Votes on tags vs docker hub requirements

[Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org>]

PR is enough. People can vote with their reviews.

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For this kind of changes do we need a vote ? or is it enough a PR against
> the release guide ?
>
> Enrico
>
> 2017-11-30 12:23 GMT+01:00 Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org>:
>
>> I like the idea of sending the sha in the vote. The tag changes, so
>> it's not possible to go back and see what was voted on after release.
>> We should provide both the sha and the tag.
>>
>> -Ivan
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:47 AM, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > yes. I was thinking of doing the flink way to have an official image repo
>> > at docker hub.
>> >
>> > - Sijie
>> >
>> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Jia Zhai <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I remember that, Do you mean we do bookkeeper docker following zookeeper
>> >> and flink's way?
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:19 AM, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I think it is better to change the docker image process, leaving tag
>> >> > untouched. I have raised the discussion about official docker image
>> ago.
>> >> > That was for addressing the issues I have seen in docker image
>> >> generation.
>> >> > I think we should revisit docker release process rather than tag.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Nov 29, 2017 1:29 PM, "Enrico Olivelli" <eo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Hi,
>> >> > > During the release process we are voting a 'tag' but because of
>> docker
>> >> > > builder requirements we have to drop that voted tag and create a new
>> >> one.
>> >> > > I think that we can improve this process by writing explicitly the
>> >> commit
>> >> > > sha in the vote email so that it is clear what PMC and other
>> >> > > committers/contributors are voting and they are sure that this will
>> not
>> >> > be
>> >> > > altered in the future.
>> >> > > I saw this in Apache Calcite vote process for instance.
>> >> > > We can also make an improvement to write the git sha on manifests
>> as we
>> >> > are
>> >> > > voting on binaries (I think that the vote is really on source, not
>> on
>> >> > > binaries)
>> >> > >
>> >> > > This is just an idea, maybe I misunderstand the process. But in this
>> >> case
>> >> > > it would be better not to cite the tag in the email and let people
>> vote
>> >> > > only on the staged source artifacts and/or make it clearer in the
>> email
>> >> > > what exactly we are going to release (binaries, sources, git sha,
>> git
>> >> > > tag...)
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I am not a lawyer I just want to understand what I am doing and
>> improve
>> >> > > things.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Enrico
>> >> > > --
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > -- Enrico Olivelli
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>>

Re: Votes on tags vs docker hub requirements

[Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>]

For this kind of changes do we need a vote ? or is it enough a PR against
the release guide ?

Enrico

2017-11-30 12:23 GMT+01:00 Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org>:

> I like the idea of sending the sha in the vote. The tag changes, so
> it's not possible to go back and see what was voted on after release.
> We should provide both the sha and the tag.
>
> -Ivan
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:47 AM, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > yes. I was thinking of doing the flink way to have an official image repo
> > at docker hub.
> >
> > - Sijie
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Jia Zhai <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I remember that, Do you mean we do bookkeeper docker following zookeeper
> >> and flink's way?
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:19 AM, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I think it is better to change the docker image process, leaving tag
> >> > untouched. I have raised the discussion about official docker image
> ago.
> >> > That was for addressing the issues I have seen in docker image
> >> generation.
> >> > I think we should revisit docker release process rather than tag.
> >> >
> >> > On Nov 29, 2017 1:29 PM, "Enrico Olivelli" <eo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi,
> >> > > During the release process we are voting a 'tag' but because of
> docker
> >> > > builder requirements we have to drop that voted tag and create a new
> >> one.
> >> > > I think that we can improve this process by writing explicitly the
> >> commit
> >> > > sha in the vote email so that it is clear what PMC and other
> >> > > committers/contributors are voting and they are sure that this will
> not
> >> > be
> >> > > altered in the future.
> >> > > I saw this in Apache Calcite vote process for instance.
> >> > > We can also make an improvement to write the git sha on manifests
> as we
> >> > are
> >> > > voting on binaries (I think that the vote is really on source, not
> on
> >> > > binaries)
> >> > >
> >> > > This is just an idea, maybe I misunderstand the process. But in this
> >> case
> >> > > it would be better not to cite the tag in the email and let people
> vote
> >> > > only on the staged source artifacts and/or make it clearer in the
> email
> >> > > what exactly we are going to release (binaries, sources, git sha,
> git
> >> > > tag...)
> >> > >
> >> > > I am not a lawyer I just want to understand what I am doing and
> improve
> >> > > things.
> >> > >
> >> > > Enrico
> >> > > --
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > -- Enrico Olivelli
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>

Re: Votes on tags vs docker hub requirements

[Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org>]

I like the idea of sending the sha in the vote. The tag changes, so
it's not possible to go back and see what was voted on after release.
We should provide both the sha and the tag.

-Ivan

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:47 AM, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> yes. I was thinking of doing the flink way to have an official image repo
> at docker hub.
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Jia Zhai <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I remember that, Do you mean we do bookkeeper docker following zookeeper
>> and flink's way?
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:19 AM, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I think it is better to change the docker image process, leaving tag
>> > untouched. I have raised the discussion about official docker image ago.
>> > That was for addressing the issues I have seen in docker image
>> generation.
>> > I think we should revisit docker release process rather than tag.
>> >
>> > On Nov 29, 2017 1:29 PM, "Enrico Olivelli" <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi,
>> > > During the release process we are voting a 'tag' but because of docker
>> > > builder requirements we have to drop that voted tag and create a new
>> one.
>> > > I think that we can improve this process by writing explicitly the
>> commit
>> > > sha in the vote email so that it is clear what PMC and other
>> > > committers/contributors are voting and they are sure that this will not
>> > be
>> > > altered in the future.
>> > > I saw this in Apache Calcite vote process for instance.
>> > > We can also make an improvement to write the git sha on manifests as we
>> > are
>> > > voting on binaries (I think that the vote is really on source, not on
>> > > binaries)
>> > >
>> > > This is just an idea, maybe I misunderstand the process. But in this
>> case
>> > > it would be better not to cite the tag in the email and let people vote
>> > > only on the staged source artifacts and/or make it clearer in the email
>> > > what exactly we are going to release (binaries, sources, git sha, git
>> > > tag...)
>> > >
>> > > I am not a lawyer I just want to understand what I am doing and improve
>> > > things.
>> > >
>> > > Enrico
>> > > --
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -- Enrico Olivelli
>> > >
>> >
>>

Re: Votes on tags vs docker hub requirements

[Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>]

yes. I was thinking of doing the flink way to have an official image repo
at docker hub.

- Sijie

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Jia Zhai <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I remember that, Do you mean we do bookkeeper docker following zookeeper
> and flink's way?
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:19 AM, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think it is better to change the docker image process, leaving tag
> > untouched. I have raised the discussion about official docker image ago.
> > That was for addressing the issues I have seen in docker image
> generation.
> > I think we should revisit docker release process rather than tag.
> >
> > On Nov 29, 2017 1:29 PM, "Enrico Olivelli" <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > During the release process we are voting a 'tag' but because of docker
> > > builder requirements we have to drop that voted tag and create a new
> one.
> > > I think that we can improve this process by writing explicitly the
> commit
> > > sha in the vote email so that it is clear what PMC and other
> > > committers/contributors are voting and they are sure that this will not
> > be
> > > altered in the future.
> > > I saw this in Apache Calcite vote process for instance.
> > > We can also make an improvement to write the git sha on manifests as we
> > are
> > > voting on binaries (I think that the vote is really on source, not on
> > > binaries)
> > >
> > > This is just an idea, maybe I misunderstand the process. But in this
> case
> > > it would be better not to cite the tag in the email and let people vote
> > > only on the staged source artifacts and/or make it clearer in the email
> > > what exactly we are going to release (binaries, sources, git sha, git
> > > tag...)
> > >
> > > I am not a lawyer I just want to understand what I am doing and improve
> > > things.
> > >
> > > Enrico
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > > -- Enrico Olivelli
> > >
> >
>

Re: Votes on tags vs docker hub requirements

[Jia Zhai <zh...@gmail.com>]

I remember that, Do you mean we do bookkeeper docker following zookeeper
and flink's way?

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:19 AM, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think it is better to change the docker image process, leaving tag
> untouched. I have raised the discussion about official docker image ago.
> That was for addressing the issues I have seen in docker image generation.
> I think we should revisit docker release process rather than tag.
>
> On Nov 29, 2017 1:29 PM, "Enrico Olivelli" <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > During the release process we are voting a 'tag' but because of docker
> > builder requirements we have to drop that voted tag and create a new one.
> > I think that we can improve this process by writing explicitly the commit
> > sha in the vote email so that it is clear what PMC and other
> > committers/contributors are voting and they are sure that this will not
> be
> > altered in the future.
> > I saw this in Apache Calcite vote process for instance.
> > We can also make an improvement to write the git sha on manifests as we
> are
> > voting on binaries (I think that the vote is really on source, not on
> > binaries)
> >
> > This is just an idea, maybe I misunderstand the process. But in this case
> > it would be better not to cite the tag in the email and let people vote
> > only on the staged source artifacts and/or make it clearer in the email
> > what exactly we are going to release (binaries, sources, git sha, git
> > tag...)
> >
> > I am not a lawyer I just want to understand what I am doing and improve
> > things.
> >
> > Enrico
> > --
> >
> >
> > -- Enrico Olivelli
> >
>

Re: Votes on tags vs docker hub requirements

[Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>]

I think it is better to change the docker image process, leaving tag
untouched. I have raised the discussion about official docker image ago.
That was for addressing the issues I have seen in docker image generation.
I think we should revisit docker release process rather than tag.

On Nov 29, 2017 1:29 PM, "Enrico Olivelli" <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> During the release process we are voting a 'tag' but because of docker
> builder requirements we have to drop that voted tag and create a new one.
> I think that we can improve this process by writing explicitly the commit
> sha in the vote email so that it is clear what PMC and other
> committers/contributors are voting and they are sure that this will not be
> altered in the future.
> I saw this in Apache Calcite vote process for instance.
> We can also make an improvement to write the git sha on manifests as we are
> voting on binaries (I think that the vote is really on source, not on
> binaries)
>
> This is just an idea, maybe I misunderstand the process. But in this case
> it would be better not to cite the tag in the email and let people vote
> only on the staged source artifacts and/or make it clearer in the email
> what exactly we are going to release (binaries, sources, git sha, git
> tag...)
>
> I am not a lawyer I just want to understand what I am doing and improve
> things.
>
> Enrico
> --
>
>
> -- Enrico Olivelli
>