You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@accumulo.apache.org by karthick rn <ka...@gmail.com> on 2020/04/09 18:25:34 UTC
accumulo-docker
Hi Christopher,
Following the conversation from PR#12
<https://github.com/apache/accumulo-docker/pull/12>, I'm interested to
drive this forward and publish the image to Dockerhub. Let me know how do I
get in touch with INFRA?
Thanks,
Karthick
Re: accumulo-docker
Posted by Mike Miller <mm...@apache.org>.
Since dependencies can change in minor version, I don't think we will be
able to get away with just a version that works with 2.x, like the maven
plugin. We have already seen changes in the docker file due to
dependencies, i.e. the recent update to ZooKeeper and the runtime binary
path. I think having one-up counters off of releases makes the most sense,
like in Brian's example. Accumulo doesn't have that many releases and we
shouldn't have more than a few fixes per release.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3:32 PM Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> On naming: having a name derived from the Accumulo version makes some
> sense. However, the Docker packaging itself can be versioned in
> addition to Accumulo being versioned. There may be bugs in the
> packaging, rather than bugs in Accumulo. I wouldn't want to do a new
> release of Accumulo every time there's a minor packaging bug.
> Similarly, it doesn't necessarily seem to make sense to release new
> Docker packaging every time there's a bugfix in Accumulo, if the
> existing Docker can be configured to use the newer version of Accumulo
> with a command-line option.
>
> So, I think it makes sense to have them coupled a little... but not too
> coupled.
>
> Regarding the suggestion to include the Dockerfile inside the main
> package itself.... I'm not so sure about that. First, this gets us in
> the same position as having to release a new version of Accumulo every
> time there's a Docker packaging bug. Second, I'm not a fan of coupling
> packaging to the core project. Packaging should be downstream of the
> project. This helps ensure that the core project's decisions are
> agnostic to downstream packaging, which is a really good principle to
> try to follow so that you don't restrict downstream integration
> flexibility.
>
> FWIW, the naming convention we went with for Accumulo's maven plugin
> packaging for 2.x was: accumulo2-maven-plugin-1.0.0 (the versioning
> started over at 1.0.0, but used 'accumulo2' to communicate the intent
> that the plugin be for all Accumulo 2.x, because any client code
> compatible with 2.x should work with any future 2.x, because we are
> backwards compatible). Perhaps something similar makes sense for
> Docker?
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 9:57 AM Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Brian, you bring up a good point on the latest tag. I would be
> fine
> > with this proposal as well.
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 9:41 AM Brian Loss <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Another possibility is to push all of that extra info into the tag.
> E.g.,
> > >
> > > accumulo:1.9.3-1
> > > accumulo:2.0.0-1
> > > accumulo:2.0.0-1-alpine
> > >
> > > That seems to be the basic pattern used by projects such as openjdk.
> It’s
> > > true that you couldn’t then have a latest tag for Accumulo 1.9.3 and
> > > Accumulo 2.0, but I don’t believe that’s the intent of the latest tag.
> I
> > > believe that’s supposed to be the single latest available stable
> release so
> > > that if I did “docker pull accumulo” I’d get the current version.
> > >
> > > > On Apr 20, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Just now following this. Looking at dockerhub, many project do
> something
> > > > like accumulo:1.9.3, accumulo:2.0.0 and then
> > > > have a tag accumulo:latest that is the latest version. So if you run
> > > > `docker pull accumulo`, it uses
> > > > latest by default. I have always found this a little lacking
> because if
> > > > you need to update the Dockerfile for say
> > > > accumulo:1.9.3, you must overwrite the previous images. If someone
> used
> > > > that prior image as a base image, it is
> > > > then really hard to recreate their image from scratch if they clear
> out
> > > > their docker cache.
> > > >
> > > > Numbers are free, so another option is to do something thing like
> > > > accumulo-1.9.3:1, accumulo-2.0.0:4 and tag
> > > > accumulo-2.0.0:latest with the last version of accumulo-2.0.0. This
> is
> > > > what I tend to do.
> > > >
> > > > If we wanted to provide images running on different OS's, we might
> also
> > > > consider names like accumulo-1.9.3-centos7:1
> > > > and accumulo-2.0.0-ubuntu16:2. Not sure that is necessary.
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 9:03 AM Vincent Russell <
> > > vincent.russell@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Most projects, that I've seen anyway, keep their Dockerfile in the
> same
> > > >> repository as their source code so that it's versioned with the
> software
> > > >> that its loading.
> > > >>
> > > >> Please consider doing this for accumulo.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> Vincent
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 8:05 AM karthick rn <
> > > karthick.narendran@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hi Christopher,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Before we vote, I'd like to us to have some idea of how we will
> label
> > > >>>> versions of accumulo-docker releases. Any opinions?
> > > >>> Could we label the 'accumulo-docker' versions based on the Accumulo
> > > >> version
> > > >>> used in it? I thought it would be simple by just relying on
> Accumulo
> > > >>> version & not having to maintain a separate versioning for
> > > >>> 'accumulo-docker'. However, I'm not sure if this would be an
> acceptable
> > > >>> practice in Apache, others might chime if they have any ideas?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Found this JIRA https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17518,
> > > that
> > > >>> suggests 2 options for publishing images to dockerhub, the 2nd
> option
> > > >> looks
> > > >>> more apt for our case & like you mentioned, we'll have to engage
> INFRA
> > > &
> > > >>> start a discussion on "builds@apache.org".
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks,
> > > >>> Karthick
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 13:49, Ed Coleman <de...@etcoleman.com>
> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Does the NiFi community have an established process or procedure
> that
> > > >>> they
> > > >>>> follow that we could copy as a guide? (
> > > >>>> https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/nifi/)
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > >>>> From: Christopher [mailto:ctubbsii@apache.org]
> > > >>>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 12:23 AM
> > > >>>> To: accumulo-dev <de...@accumulo.apache.org>
> > > >>>> Subject: Re: accumulo-docker
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> First, I don't know much about how Docker or Dockerhub works. I
> don't
> > > >> use
> > > >>>> docker often, and have never used Dockerhub. So that is a gap in
> my
> > > >>>> knowledge that will need to be filled by somebody else's
> expertise.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Before we distribute accumulo-docker code, we need to vote on a
> > > >> release.
> > > >>>> Any PMC member can prepare a release candidate and initiate that
> vote.
> > > >>>> (I'm willing to do it, once we figure out how the distribution
> should
> > > >>> go.)
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Before we vote, I'd like to us to have some idea of how we will
> label
> > > >>>> versions of accumulo-docker releases. Any opinions?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> After we figure out release versioning and vote, I don't know what
> > > >> comes
> > > >>>> next.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I believe INFRA has an "organization" for Apache on Dockerhub...
> but
> > > >> we'd
> > > >>>> probably have to put in a ticket.
> > > >>>> A search on JIRA shows some previous similar issues:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18167?jql=project%3DINFRA%20AND%20text~dockerhub
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Those might be a good starting point for researching how to
> publish.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:25 PM karthick rn <
> > > >> karthick.narendran@gmail.com
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Hi Christopher,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Following the conversation from PR#12
> > > >>>>> <https://github.com/apache/accumulo-docker/pull/12>, I'm
> interested
> > > >> to
> > > >>>>> drive this forward and publish the image to Dockerhub. Let me
> know
> > > >> how
> > > >>>>> do I get in touch with INFRA?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>> Karthick
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
>
Re: accumulo-docker
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
I'm fine with that (the points made by Brian and Mike).
What would pulling a specific version from dockerhub look like?
The README says only: docker pull apache/accumulo
What would this command look like to get a specific version?
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3:57 PM Brian Loss <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That’s a fair point about separating the releases of Accumulo from its docker packaging. I would say that we’d want a new docker image release every time there’s a new Accumulo release, but the reverse is what we’re wanting to avoid. Personally, I would equate a Docker release to a RPM/DEB/etc release. There can be bugs in the packaging, and for RPMs my (possibly incorrect) understanding is the release number (the -1 in what I suggested) is meant to cover that.
>
> > On Apr 20, 2020, at 3:32 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > On naming: having a name derived from the Accumulo version makes some
> > sense. However, the Docker packaging itself can be versioned in
> > addition to Accumulo being versioned. There may be bugs in the
> > packaging, rather than bugs in Accumulo. I wouldn't want to do a new
> > release of Accumulo every time there's a minor packaging bug.
> > Similarly, it doesn't necessarily seem to make sense to release new
> > Docker packaging every time there's a bugfix in Accumulo, if the
> > existing Docker can be configured to use the newer version of Accumulo
> > with a command-line option.
> >
> > So, I think it makes sense to have them coupled a little... but not too coupled.
> >
> > Regarding the suggestion to include the Dockerfile inside the main
> > package itself.... I'm not so sure about that. First, this gets us in
> > the same position as having to release a new version of Accumulo every
> > time there's a Docker packaging bug. Second, I'm not a fan of coupling
> > packaging to the core project. Packaging should be downstream of the
> > project. This helps ensure that the core project's decisions are
> > agnostic to downstream packaging, which is a really good principle to
> > try to follow so that you don't restrict downstream integration
> > flexibility.
> >
> > FWIW, the naming convention we went with for Accumulo's maven plugin
> > packaging for 2.x was: accumulo2-maven-plugin-1.0.0 (the versioning
> > started over at 1.0.0, but used 'accumulo2' to communicate the intent
> > that the plugin be for all Accumulo 2.x, because any client code
> > compatible with 2.x should work with any future 2.x, because we are
> > backwards compatible). Perhaps something similar makes sense for
> > Docker?
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 9:57 AM Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks Brian, you bring up a good point on the latest tag. I would be fine
> >> with this proposal as well.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 9:41 AM Brian Loss <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Another possibility is to push all of that extra info into the tag. E.g.,
> >>>
> >>> accumulo:1.9.3-1
> >>> accumulo:2.0.0-1
> >>> accumulo:2.0.0-1-alpine
> >>>
> >>> That seems to be the basic pattern used by projects such as openjdk. It’s
> >>> true that you couldn’t then have a latest tag for Accumulo 1.9.3 and
> >>> Accumulo 2.0, but I don’t believe that’s the intent of the latest tag. I
> >>> believe that’s supposed to be the single latest available stable release so
> >>> that if I did “docker pull accumulo” I’d get the current version.
> >>>
> >>>> On Apr 20, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Just now following this. Looking at dockerhub, many project do something
> >>>> like accumulo:1.9.3, accumulo:2.0.0 and then
> >>>> have a tag accumulo:latest that is the latest version. So if you run
> >>>> `docker pull accumulo`, it uses
> >>>> latest by default. I have always found this a little lacking because if
> >>>> you need to update the Dockerfile for say
> >>>> accumulo:1.9.3, you must overwrite the previous images. If someone used
> >>>> that prior image as a base image, it is
> >>>> then really hard to recreate their image from scratch if they clear out
> >>>> their docker cache.
> >>>>
> >>>> Numbers are free, so another option is to do something thing like
> >>>> accumulo-1.9.3:1, accumulo-2.0.0:4 and tag
> >>>> accumulo-2.0.0:latest with the last version of accumulo-2.0.0. This is
> >>>> what I tend to do.
> >>>>
> >>>> If we wanted to provide images running on different OS's, we might also
> >>>> consider names like accumulo-1.9.3-centos7:1
> >>>> and accumulo-2.0.0-ubuntu16:2. Not sure that is necessary.
> >>>>
> >>>> Mike
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 9:03 AM Vincent Russell <
> >>> vincent.russell@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Most projects, that I've seen anyway, keep their Dockerfile in the same
> >>>>> repository as their source code so that it's versioned with the software
> >>>>> that its loading.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please consider doing this for accumulo.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Vincent
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 8:05 AM karthick rn <
> >>> karthick.narendran@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Christopher,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Before we vote, I'd like to us to have some idea of how we will label
> >>>>>>> versions of accumulo-docker releases. Any opinions?
> >>>>>> Could we label the 'accumulo-docker' versions based on the Accumulo
> >>>>> version
> >>>>>> used in it? I thought it would be simple by just relying on Accumulo
> >>>>>> version & not having to maintain a separate versioning for
> >>>>>> 'accumulo-docker'. However, I'm not sure if this would be an acceptable
> >>>>>> practice in Apache, others might chime if they have any ideas?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Found this JIRA https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17518,
> >>> that
> >>>>>> suggests 2 options for publishing images to dockerhub, the 2nd option
> >>>>> looks
> >>>>>> more apt for our case & like you mentioned, we'll have to engage INFRA
> >>> &
> >>>>>> start a discussion on "builds@apache.org".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>> Karthick
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 13:49, Ed Coleman <de...@etcoleman.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Does the NiFi community have an established process or procedure that
> >>>>>> they
> >>>>>>> follow that we could copy as a guide? (
> >>>>>>> https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/nifi/)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>> From: Christopher [mailto:ctubbsii@apache.org]
> >>>>>>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 12:23 AM
> >>>>>>> To: accumulo-dev <de...@accumulo.apache.org>
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: accumulo-docker
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> First, I don't know much about how Docker or Dockerhub works. I don't
> >>>>> use
> >>>>>>> docker often, and have never used Dockerhub. So that is a gap in my
> >>>>>>> knowledge that will need to be filled by somebody else's expertise.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Before we distribute accumulo-docker code, we need to vote on a
> >>>>> release.
> >>>>>>> Any PMC member can prepare a release candidate and initiate that vote.
> >>>>>>> (I'm willing to do it, once we figure out how the distribution should
> >>>>>> go.)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Before we vote, I'd like to us to have some idea of how we will label
> >>>>>>> versions of accumulo-docker releases. Any opinions?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> After we figure out release versioning and vote, I don't know what
> >>>>> comes
> >>>>>>> next.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I believe INFRA has an "organization" for Apache on Dockerhub... but
> >>>>> we'd
> >>>>>>> probably have to put in a ticket.
> >>>>>>> A search on JIRA shows some previous similar issues:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18167?jql=project%3DINFRA%20AND%20text~dockerhub
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Those might be a good starting point for researching how to publish.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:25 PM karthick rn <
> >>>>> karthick.narendran@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi Christopher,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Following the conversation from PR#12
> >>>>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/accumulo-docker/pull/12>, I'm interested
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> drive this forward and publish the image to Dockerhub. Let me know
> >>>>> how
> >>>>>>>> do I get in touch with INFRA?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>> Karthick
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
Re: accumulo-docker
Posted by Brian Loss <br...@gmail.com>.
That’s a fair point about separating the releases of Accumulo from its docker packaging. I would say that we’d want a new docker image release every time there’s a new Accumulo release, but the reverse is what we’re wanting to avoid. Personally, I would equate a Docker release to a RPM/DEB/etc release. There can be bugs in the packaging, and for RPMs my (possibly incorrect) understanding is the release number (the -1 in what I suggested) is meant to cover that.
> On Apr 20, 2020, at 3:32 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On naming: having a name derived from the Accumulo version makes some
> sense. However, the Docker packaging itself can be versioned in
> addition to Accumulo being versioned. There may be bugs in the
> packaging, rather than bugs in Accumulo. I wouldn't want to do a new
> release of Accumulo every time there's a minor packaging bug.
> Similarly, it doesn't necessarily seem to make sense to release new
> Docker packaging every time there's a bugfix in Accumulo, if the
> existing Docker can be configured to use the newer version of Accumulo
> with a command-line option.
>
> So, I think it makes sense to have them coupled a little... but not too coupled.
>
> Regarding the suggestion to include the Dockerfile inside the main
> package itself.... I'm not so sure about that. First, this gets us in
> the same position as having to release a new version of Accumulo every
> time there's a Docker packaging bug. Second, I'm not a fan of coupling
> packaging to the core project. Packaging should be downstream of the
> project. This helps ensure that the core project's decisions are
> agnostic to downstream packaging, which is a really good principle to
> try to follow so that you don't restrict downstream integration
> flexibility.
>
> FWIW, the naming convention we went with for Accumulo's maven plugin
> packaging for 2.x was: accumulo2-maven-plugin-1.0.0 (the versioning
> started over at 1.0.0, but used 'accumulo2' to communicate the intent
> that the plugin be for all Accumulo 2.x, because any client code
> compatible with 2.x should work with any future 2.x, because we are
> backwards compatible). Perhaps something similar makes sense for
> Docker?
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 9:57 AM Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Brian, you bring up a good point on the latest tag. I would be fine
>> with this proposal as well.
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 9:41 AM Brian Loss <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Another possibility is to push all of that extra info into the tag. E.g.,
>>>
>>> accumulo:1.9.3-1
>>> accumulo:2.0.0-1
>>> accumulo:2.0.0-1-alpine
>>>
>>> That seems to be the basic pattern used by projects such as openjdk. It’s
>>> true that you couldn’t then have a latest tag for Accumulo 1.9.3 and
>>> Accumulo 2.0, but I don’t believe that’s the intent of the latest tag. I
>>> believe that’s supposed to be the single latest available stable release so
>>> that if I did “docker pull accumulo” I’d get the current version.
>>>
>>>> On Apr 20, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Just now following this. Looking at dockerhub, many project do something
>>>> like accumulo:1.9.3, accumulo:2.0.0 and then
>>>> have a tag accumulo:latest that is the latest version. So if you run
>>>> `docker pull accumulo`, it uses
>>>> latest by default. I have always found this a little lacking because if
>>>> you need to update the Dockerfile for say
>>>> accumulo:1.9.3, you must overwrite the previous images. If someone used
>>>> that prior image as a base image, it is
>>>> then really hard to recreate their image from scratch if they clear out
>>>> their docker cache.
>>>>
>>>> Numbers are free, so another option is to do something thing like
>>>> accumulo-1.9.3:1, accumulo-2.0.0:4 and tag
>>>> accumulo-2.0.0:latest with the last version of accumulo-2.0.0. This is
>>>> what I tend to do.
>>>>
>>>> If we wanted to provide images running on different OS's, we might also
>>>> consider names like accumulo-1.9.3-centos7:1
>>>> and accumulo-2.0.0-ubuntu16:2. Not sure that is necessary.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 9:03 AM Vincent Russell <
>>> vincent.russell@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Most projects, that I've seen anyway, keep their Dockerfile in the same
>>>>> repository as their source code so that it's versioned with the software
>>>>> that its loading.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please consider doing this for accumulo.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Vincent
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 8:05 AM karthick rn <
>>> karthick.narendran@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Christopher,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Before we vote, I'd like to us to have some idea of how we will label
>>>>>>> versions of accumulo-docker releases. Any opinions?
>>>>>> Could we label the 'accumulo-docker' versions based on the Accumulo
>>>>> version
>>>>>> used in it? I thought it would be simple by just relying on Accumulo
>>>>>> version & not having to maintain a separate versioning for
>>>>>> 'accumulo-docker'. However, I'm not sure if this would be an acceptable
>>>>>> practice in Apache, others might chime if they have any ideas?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Found this JIRA https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17518,
>>> that
>>>>>> suggests 2 options for publishing images to dockerhub, the 2nd option
>>>>> looks
>>>>>> more apt for our case & like you mentioned, we'll have to engage INFRA
>>> &
>>>>>> start a discussion on "builds@apache.org".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Karthick
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 13:49, Ed Coleman <de...@etcoleman.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does the NiFi community have an established process or procedure that
>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> follow that we could copy as a guide? (
>>>>>>> https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/nifi/)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Christopher [mailto:ctubbsii@apache.org]
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 12:23 AM
>>>>>>> To: accumulo-dev <de...@accumulo.apache.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: accumulo-docker
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First, I don't know much about how Docker or Dockerhub works. I don't
>>>>> use
>>>>>>> docker often, and have never used Dockerhub. So that is a gap in my
>>>>>>> knowledge that will need to be filled by somebody else's expertise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Before we distribute accumulo-docker code, we need to vote on a
>>>>> release.
>>>>>>> Any PMC member can prepare a release candidate and initiate that vote.
>>>>>>> (I'm willing to do it, once we figure out how the distribution should
>>>>>> go.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Before we vote, I'd like to us to have some idea of how we will label
>>>>>>> versions of accumulo-docker releases. Any opinions?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After we figure out release versioning and vote, I don't know what
>>>>> comes
>>>>>>> next.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe INFRA has an "organization" for Apache on Dockerhub... but
>>>>> we'd
>>>>>>> probably have to put in a ticket.
>>>>>>> A search on JIRA shows some previous similar issues:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18167?jql=project%3DINFRA%20AND%20text~dockerhub
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Those might be a good starting point for researching how to publish.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:25 PM karthick rn <
>>>>> karthick.narendran@gmail.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Christopher,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Following the conversation from PR#12
>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/accumulo-docker/pull/12>, I'm interested
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> drive this forward and publish the image to Dockerhub. Let me know
>>>>> how
>>>>>>>> do I get in touch with INFRA?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Karthick
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
Re: accumulo-docker
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
On naming: having a name derived from the Accumulo version makes some
sense. However, the Docker packaging itself can be versioned in
addition to Accumulo being versioned. There may be bugs in the
packaging, rather than bugs in Accumulo. I wouldn't want to do a new
release of Accumulo every time there's a minor packaging bug.
Similarly, it doesn't necessarily seem to make sense to release new
Docker packaging every time there's a bugfix in Accumulo, if the
existing Docker can be configured to use the newer version of Accumulo
with a command-line option.
So, I think it makes sense to have them coupled a little... but not too coupled.
Regarding the suggestion to include the Dockerfile inside the main
package itself.... I'm not so sure about that. First, this gets us in
the same position as having to release a new version of Accumulo every
time there's a Docker packaging bug. Second, I'm not a fan of coupling
packaging to the core project. Packaging should be downstream of the
project. This helps ensure that the core project's decisions are
agnostic to downstream packaging, which is a really good principle to
try to follow so that you don't restrict downstream integration
flexibility.
FWIW, the naming convention we went with for Accumulo's maven plugin
packaging for 2.x was: accumulo2-maven-plugin-1.0.0 (the versioning
started over at 1.0.0, but used 'accumulo2' to communicate the intent
that the plugin be for all Accumulo 2.x, because any client code
compatible with 2.x should work with any future 2.x, because we are
backwards compatible). Perhaps something similar makes sense for
Docker?
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 9:57 AM Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks Brian, you bring up a good point on the latest tag. I would be fine
> with this proposal as well.
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 9:41 AM Brian Loss <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Another possibility is to push all of that extra info into the tag. E.g.,
> >
> > accumulo:1.9.3-1
> > accumulo:2.0.0-1
> > accumulo:2.0.0-1-alpine
> >
> > That seems to be the basic pattern used by projects such as openjdk. It’s
> > true that you couldn’t then have a latest tag for Accumulo 1.9.3 and
> > Accumulo 2.0, but I don’t believe that’s the intent of the latest tag. I
> > believe that’s supposed to be the single latest available stable release so
> > that if I did “docker pull accumulo” I’d get the current version.
> >
> > > On Apr 20, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Just now following this. Looking at dockerhub, many project do something
> > > like accumulo:1.9.3, accumulo:2.0.0 and then
> > > have a tag accumulo:latest that is the latest version. So if you run
> > > `docker pull accumulo`, it uses
> > > latest by default. I have always found this a little lacking because if
> > > you need to update the Dockerfile for say
> > > accumulo:1.9.3, you must overwrite the previous images. If someone used
> > > that prior image as a base image, it is
> > > then really hard to recreate their image from scratch if they clear out
> > > their docker cache.
> > >
> > > Numbers are free, so another option is to do something thing like
> > > accumulo-1.9.3:1, accumulo-2.0.0:4 and tag
> > > accumulo-2.0.0:latest with the last version of accumulo-2.0.0. This is
> > > what I tend to do.
> > >
> > > If we wanted to provide images running on different OS's, we might also
> > > consider names like accumulo-1.9.3-centos7:1
> > > and accumulo-2.0.0-ubuntu16:2. Not sure that is necessary.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 9:03 AM Vincent Russell <
> > vincent.russell@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Most projects, that I've seen anyway, keep their Dockerfile in the same
> > >> repository as their source code so that it's versioned with the software
> > >> that its loading.
> > >>
> > >> Please consider doing this for accumulo.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Vincent
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 8:05 AM karthick rn <
> > karthick.narendran@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi Christopher,
> > >>>
> > >>>> Before we vote, I'd like to us to have some idea of how we will label
> > >>>> versions of accumulo-docker releases. Any opinions?
> > >>> Could we label the 'accumulo-docker' versions based on the Accumulo
> > >> version
> > >>> used in it? I thought it would be simple by just relying on Accumulo
> > >>> version & not having to maintain a separate versioning for
> > >>> 'accumulo-docker'. However, I'm not sure if this would be an acceptable
> > >>> practice in Apache, others might chime if they have any ideas?
> > >>>
> > >>> Found this JIRA https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17518,
> > that
> > >>> suggests 2 options for publishing images to dockerhub, the 2nd option
> > >> looks
> > >>> more apt for our case & like you mentioned, we'll have to engage INFRA
> > &
> > >>> start a discussion on "builds@apache.org".
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Karthick
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 13:49, Ed Coleman <de...@etcoleman.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Does the NiFi community have an established process or procedure that
> > >>> they
> > >>>> follow that we could copy as a guide? (
> > >>>> https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/nifi/)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>> From: Christopher [mailto:ctubbsii@apache.org]
> > >>>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 12:23 AM
> > >>>> To: accumulo-dev <de...@accumulo.apache.org>
> > >>>> Subject: Re: accumulo-docker
> > >>>>
> > >>>> First, I don't know much about how Docker or Dockerhub works. I don't
> > >> use
> > >>>> docker often, and have never used Dockerhub. So that is a gap in my
> > >>>> knowledge that will need to be filled by somebody else's expertise.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Before we distribute accumulo-docker code, we need to vote on a
> > >> release.
> > >>>> Any PMC member can prepare a release candidate and initiate that vote.
> > >>>> (I'm willing to do it, once we figure out how the distribution should
> > >>> go.)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Before we vote, I'd like to us to have some idea of how we will label
> > >>>> versions of accumulo-docker releases. Any opinions?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> After we figure out release versioning and vote, I don't know what
> > >> comes
> > >>>> next.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I believe INFRA has an "organization" for Apache on Dockerhub... but
> > >> we'd
> > >>>> probably have to put in a ticket.
> > >>>> A search on JIRA shows some previous similar issues:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18167?jql=project%3DINFRA%20AND%20text~dockerhub
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Those might be a good starting point for researching how to publish.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:25 PM karthick rn <
> > >> karthick.narendran@gmail.com
> > >>>>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Hi Christopher,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Following the conversation from PR#12
> > >>>>> <https://github.com/apache/accumulo-docker/pull/12>, I'm interested
> > >> to
> > >>>>> drive this forward and publish the image to Dockerhub. Let me know
> > >> how
> > >>>>> do I get in touch with INFRA?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>> Karthick
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
Re: accumulo-docker
Posted by Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org>.
Thanks Brian, you bring up a good point on the latest tag. I would be fine
with this proposal as well.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 9:41 AM Brian Loss <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Another possibility is to push all of that extra info into the tag. E.g.,
>
> accumulo:1.9.3-1
> accumulo:2.0.0-1
> accumulo:2.0.0-1-alpine
>
> That seems to be the basic pattern used by projects such as openjdk. It’s
> true that you couldn’t then have a latest tag for Accumulo 1.9.3 and
> Accumulo 2.0, but I don’t believe that’s the intent of the latest tag. I
> believe that’s supposed to be the single latest available stable release so
> that if I did “docker pull accumulo” I’d get the current version.
>
> > On Apr 20, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Just now following this. Looking at dockerhub, many project do something
> > like accumulo:1.9.3, accumulo:2.0.0 and then
> > have a tag accumulo:latest that is the latest version. So if you run
> > `docker pull accumulo`, it uses
> > latest by default. I have always found this a little lacking because if
> > you need to update the Dockerfile for say
> > accumulo:1.9.3, you must overwrite the previous images. If someone used
> > that prior image as a base image, it is
> > then really hard to recreate their image from scratch if they clear out
> > their docker cache.
> >
> > Numbers are free, so another option is to do something thing like
> > accumulo-1.9.3:1, accumulo-2.0.0:4 and tag
> > accumulo-2.0.0:latest with the last version of accumulo-2.0.0. This is
> > what I tend to do.
> >
> > If we wanted to provide images running on different OS's, we might also
> > consider names like accumulo-1.9.3-centos7:1
> > and accumulo-2.0.0-ubuntu16:2. Not sure that is necessary.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 9:03 AM Vincent Russell <
> vincent.russell@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Most projects, that I've seen anyway, keep their Dockerfile in the same
> >> repository as their source code so that it's versioned with the software
> >> that its loading.
> >>
> >> Please consider doing this for accumulo.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Vincent
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 8:05 AM karthick rn <
> karthick.narendran@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Christopher,
> >>>
> >>>> Before we vote, I'd like to us to have some idea of how we will label
> >>>> versions of accumulo-docker releases. Any opinions?
> >>> Could we label the 'accumulo-docker' versions based on the Accumulo
> >> version
> >>> used in it? I thought it would be simple by just relying on Accumulo
> >>> version & not having to maintain a separate versioning for
> >>> 'accumulo-docker'. However, I'm not sure if this would be an acceptable
> >>> practice in Apache, others might chime if they have any ideas?
> >>>
> >>> Found this JIRA https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17518,
> that
> >>> suggests 2 options for publishing images to dockerhub, the 2nd option
> >> looks
> >>> more apt for our case & like you mentioned, we'll have to engage INFRA
> &
> >>> start a discussion on "builds@apache.org".
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Karthick
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 13:49, Ed Coleman <de...@etcoleman.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Does the NiFi community have an established process or procedure that
> >>> they
> >>>> follow that we could copy as a guide? (
> >>>> https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/nifi/)
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Christopher [mailto:ctubbsii@apache.org]
> >>>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 12:23 AM
> >>>> To: accumulo-dev <de...@accumulo.apache.org>
> >>>> Subject: Re: accumulo-docker
> >>>>
> >>>> First, I don't know much about how Docker or Dockerhub works. I don't
> >> use
> >>>> docker often, and have never used Dockerhub. So that is a gap in my
> >>>> knowledge that will need to be filled by somebody else's expertise.
> >>>>
> >>>> Before we distribute accumulo-docker code, we need to vote on a
> >> release.
> >>>> Any PMC member can prepare a release candidate and initiate that vote.
> >>>> (I'm willing to do it, once we figure out how the distribution should
> >>> go.)
> >>>>
> >>>> Before we vote, I'd like to us to have some idea of how we will label
> >>>> versions of accumulo-docker releases. Any opinions?
> >>>>
> >>>> After we figure out release versioning and vote, I don't know what
> >> comes
> >>>> next.
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe INFRA has an "organization" for Apache on Dockerhub... but
> >> we'd
> >>>> probably have to put in a ticket.
> >>>> A search on JIRA shows some previous similar issues:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18167?jql=project%3DINFRA%20AND%20text~dockerhub
> >>>>
> >>>> Those might be a good starting point for researching how to publish.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:25 PM karthick rn <
> >> karthick.narendran@gmail.com
> >>>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Christopher,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Following the conversation from PR#12
> >>>>> <https://github.com/apache/accumulo-docker/pull/12>, I'm interested
> >> to
> >>>>> drive this forward and publish the image to Dockerhub. Let me know
> >> how
> >>>>> do I get in touch with INFRA?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Karthick
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
Re: accumulo-docker
Posted by Brian Loss <br...@gmail.com>.
Another possibility is to push all of that extra info into the tag. E.g.,
accumulo:1.9.3-1
accumulo:2.0.0-1
accumulo:2.0.0-1-alpine
That seems to be the basic pattern used by projects such as openjdk. It’s true that you couldn’t then have a latest tag for Accumulo 1.9.3 and Accumulo 2.0, but I don’t believe that’s the intent of the latest tag. I believe that’s supposed to be the single latest available stable release so that if I did “docker pull accumulo” I’d get the current version.
> On Apr 20, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Just now following this. Looking at dockerhub, many project do something
> like accumulo:1.9.3, accumulo:2.0.0 and then
> have a tag accumulo:latest that is the latest version. So if you run
> `docker pull accumulo`, it uses
> latest by default. I have always found this a little lacking because if
> you need to update the Dockerfile for say
> accumulo:1.9.3, you must overwrite the previous images. If someone used
> that prior image as a base image, it is
> then really hard to recreate their image from scratch if they clear out
> their docker cache.
>
> Numbers are free, so another option is to do something thing like
> accumulo-1.9.3:1, accumulo-2.0.0:4 and tag
> accumulo-2.0.0:latest with the last version of accumulo-2.0.0. This is
> what I tend to do.
>
> If we wanted to provide images running on different OS's, we might also
> consider names like accumulo-1.9.3-centos7:1
> and accumulo-2.0.0-ubuntu16:2. Not sure that is necessary.
>
> Mike
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 9:03 AM Vincent Russell <vi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Most projects, that I've seen anyway, keep their Dockerfile in the same
>> repository as their source code so that it's versioned with the software
>> that its loading.
>>
>> Please consider doing this for accumulo.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vincent
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 8:05 AM karthick rn <ka...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Christopher,
>>>
>>>> Before we vote, I'd like to us to have some idea of how we will label
>>>> versions of accumulo-docker releases. Any opinions?
>>> Could we label the 'accumulo-docker' versions based on the Accumulo
>> version
>>> used in it? I thought it would be simple by just relying on Accumulo
>>> version & not having to maintain a separate versioning for
>>> 'accumulo-docker'. However, I'm not sure if this would be an acceptable
>>> practice in Apache, others might chime if they have any ideas?
>>>
>>> Found this JIRA https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17518, that
>>> suggests 2 options for publishing images to dockerhub, the 2nd option
>> looks
>>> more apt for our case & like you mentioned, we'll have to engage INFRA &
>>> start a discussion on "builds@apache.org".
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Karthick
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 13:49, Ed Coleman <de...@etcoleman.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Does the NiFi community have an established process or procedure that
>>> they
>>>> follow that we could copy as a guide? (
>>>> https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/nifi/)
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Christopher [mailto:ctubbsii@apache.org]
>>>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 12:23 AM
>>>> To: accumulo-dev <de...@accumulo.apache.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: accumulo-docker
>>>>
>>>> First, I don't know much about how Docker or Dockerhub works. I don't
>> use
>>>> docker often, and have never used Dockerhub. So that is a gap in my
>>>> knowledge that will need to be filled by somebody else's expertise.
>>>>
>>>> Before we distribute accumulo-docker code, we need to vote on a
>> release.
>>>> Any PMC member can prepare a release candidate and initiate that vote.
>>>> (I'm willing to do it, once we figure out how the distribution should
>>> go.)
>>>>
>>>> Before we vote, I'd like to us to have some idea of how we will label
>>>> versions of accumulo-docker releases. Any opinions?
>>>>
>>>> After we figure out release versioning and vote, I don't know what
>> comes
>>>> next.
>>>>
>>>> I believe INFRA has an "organization" for Apache on Dockerhub... but
>> we'd
>>>> probably have to put in a ticket.
>>>> A search on JIRA shows some previous similar issues:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18167?jql=project%3DINFRA%20AND%20text~dockerhub
>>>>
>>>> Those might be a good starting point for researching how to publish.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:25 PM karthick rn <
>> karthick.narendran@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Christopher,
>>>>>
>>>>> Following the conversation from PR#12
>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/accumulo-docker/pull/12>, I'm interested
>> to
>>>>> drive this forward and publish the image to Dockerhub. Let me know
>> how
>>>>> do I get in touch with INFRA?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Karthick
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: accumulo-docker
Posted by Michael Wall <mj...@apache.org>.
Just now following this. Looking at dockerhub, many project do something
like accumulo:1.9.3, accumulo:2.0.0 and then
have a tag accumulo:latest that is the latest version. So if you run
`docker pull accumulo`, it uses
latest by default. I have always found this a little lacking because if
you need to update the Dockerfile for say
accumulo:1.9.3, you must overwrite the previous images. If someone used
that prior image as a base image, it is
then really hard to recreate their image from scratch if they clear out
their docker cache.
Numbers are free, so another option is to do something thing like
accumulo-1.9.3:1, accumulo-2.0.0:4 and tag
accumulo-2.0.0:latest with the last version of accumulo-2.0.0. This is
what I tend to do.
If we wanted to provide images running on different OS's, we might also
consider names like accumulo-1.9.3-centos7:1
and accumulo-2.0.0-ubuntu16:2. Not sure that is necessary.
Mike
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 9:03 AM Vincent Russell <vi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Most projects, that I've seen anyway, keep their Dockerfile in the same
> repository as their source code so that it's versioned with the software
> that its loading.
>
> Please consider doing this for accumulo.
>
> Thanks,
> Vincent
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 8:05 AM karthick rn <ka...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Christopher,
> >
> > > Before we vote, I'd like to us to have some idea of how we will label
> > > versions of accumulo-docker releases. Any opinions?
> > Could we label the 'accumulo-docker' versions based on the Accumulo
> version
> > used in it? I thought it would be simple by just relying on Accumulo
> > version & not having to maintain a separate versioning for
> > 'accumulo-docker'. However, I'm not sure if this would be an acceptable
> > practice in Apache, others might chime if they have any ideas?
> >
> > Found this JIRA https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17518, that
> > suggests 2 options for publishing images to dockerhub, the 2nd option
> looks
> > more apt for our case & like you mentioned, we'll have to engage INFRA &
> > start a discussion on "builds@apache.org".
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Karthick
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 13:49, Ed Coleman <de...@etcoleman.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Does the NiFi community have an established process or procedure that
> > they
> > > follow that we could copy as a guide? (
> > > https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/nifi/)
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Christopher [mailto:ctubbsii@apache.org]
> > > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 12:23 AM
> > > To: accumulo-dev <de...@accumulo.apache.org>
> > > Subject: Re: accumulo-docker
> > >
> > > First, I don't know much about how Docker or Dockerhub works. I don't
> use
> > > docker often, and have never used Dockerhub. So that is a gap in my
> > > knowledge that will need to be filled by somebody else's expertise.
> > >
> > > Before we distribute accumulo-docker code, we need to vote on a
> release.
> > > Any PMC member can prepare a release candidate and initiate that vote.
> > > (I'm willing to do it, once we figure out how the distribution should
> > go.)
> > >
> > > Before we vote, I'd like to us to have some idea of how we will label
> > > versions of accumulo-docker releases. Any opinions?
> > >
> > > After we figure out release versioning and vote, I don't know what
> comes
> > > next.
> > >
> > > I believe INFRA has an "organization" for Apache on Dockerhub... but
> we'd
> > > probably have to put in a ticket.
> > > A search on JIRA shows some previous similar issues:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18167?jql=project%3DINFRA%20AND%20text~dockerhub
> > >
> > > Those might be a good starting point for researching how to publish.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:25 PM karthick rn <
> karthick.narendran@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Christopher,
> > > >
> > > > Following the conversation from PR#12
> > > > <https://github.com/apache/accumulo-docker/pull/12>, I'm interested
> to
> > > > drive this forward and publish the image to Dockerhub. Let me know
> how
> > > > do I get in touch with INFRA?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Karthick
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: accumulo-docker
Posted by Vincent Russell <vi...@gmail.com>.
Most projects, that I've seen anyway, keep their Dockerfile in the same
repository as their source code so that it's versioned with the software
that its loading.
Please consider doing this for accumulo.
Thanks,
Vincent
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 8:05 AM karthick rn <ka...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Christopher,
>
> > Before we vote, I'd like to us to have some idea of how we will label
> > versions of accumulo-docker releases. Any opinions?
> Could we label the 'accumulo-docker' versions based on the Accumulo version
> used in it? I thought it would be simple by just relying on Accumulo
> version & not having to maintain a separate versioning for
> 'accumulo-docker'. However, I'm not sure if this would be an acceptable
> practice in Apache, others might chime if they have any ideas?
>
> Found this JIRA https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17518, that
> suggests 2 options for publishing images to dockerhub, the 2nd option looks
> more apt for our case & like you mentioned, we'll have to engage INFRA &
> start a discussion on "builds@apache.org".
>
> Thanks,
> Karthick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 13:49, Ed Coleman <de...@etcoleman.com> wrote:
>
> > Does the NiFi community have an established process or procedure that
> they
> > follow that we could copy as a guide? (
> > https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/nifi/)
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christopher [mailto:ctubbsii@apache.org]
> > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 12:23 AM
> > To: accumulo-dev <de...@accumulo.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: accumulo-docker
> >
> > First, I don't know much about how Docker or Dockerhub works. I don't use
> > docker often, and have never used Dockerhub. So that is a gap in my
> > knowledge that will need to be filled by somebody else's expertise.
> >
> > Before we distribute accumulo-docker code, we need to vote on a release.
> > Any PMC member can prepare a release candidate and initiate that vote.
> > (I'm willing to do it, once we figure out how the distribution should
> go.)
> >
> > Before we vote, I'd like to us to have some idea of how we will label
> > versions of accumulo-docker releases. Any opinions?
> >
> > After we figure out release versioning and vote, I don't know what comes
> > next.
> >
> > I believe INFRA has an "organization" for Apache on Dockerhub... but we'd
> > probably have to put in a ticket.
> > A search on JIRA shows some previous similar issues:
> >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18167?jql=project%3DINFRA%20AND%20text~dockerhub
> >
> > Those might be a good starting point for researching how to publish.
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:25 PM karthick rn <karthick.narendran@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Christopher,
> > >
> > > Following the conversation from PR#12
> > > <https://github.com/apache/accumulo-docker/pull/12>, I'm interested to
> > > drive this forward and publish the image to Dockerhub. Let me know how
> > > do I get in touch with INFRA?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Karthick
> >
> >
>
Re: accumulo-docker
Posted by karthick rn <ka...@gmail.com>.
Hi Christopher,
> Before we vote, I'd like to us to have some idea of how we will label
> versions of accumulo-docker releases. Any opinions?
Could we label the 'accumulo-docker' versions based on the Accumulo version
used in it? I thought it would be simple by just relying on Accumulo
version & not having to maintain a separate versioning for
'accumulo-docker'. However, I'm not sure if this would be an acceptable
practice in Apache, others might chime if they have any ideas?
Found this JIRA https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17518, that
suggests 2 options for publishing images to dockerhub, the 2nd option looks
more apt for our case & like you mentioned, we'll have to engage INFRA &
start a discussion on "builds@apache.org".
Thanks,
Karthick
On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 13:49, Ed Coleman <de...@etcoleman.com> wrote:
> Does the NiFi community have an established process or procedure that they
> follow that we could copy as a guide? (
> https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/nifi/)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher [mailto:ctubbsii@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 12:23 AM
> To: accumulo-dev <de...@accumulo.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: accumulo-docker
>
> First, I don't know much about how Docker or Dockerhub works. I don't use
> docker often, and have never used Dockerhub. So that is a gap in my
> knowledge that will need to be filled by somebody else's expertise.
>
> Before we distribute accumulo-docker code, we need to vote on a release.
> Any PMC member can prepare a release candidate and initiate that vote.
> (I'm willing to do it, once we figure out how the distribution should go.)
>
> Before we vote, I'd like to us to have some idea of how we will label
> versions of accumulo-docker releases. Any opinions?
>
> After we figure out release versioning and vote, I don't know what comes
> next.
>
> I believe INFRA has an "organization" for Apache on Dockerhub... but we'd
> probably have to put in a ticket.
> A search on JIRA shows some previous similar issues:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18167?jql=project%3DINFRA%20AND%20text~dockerhub
>
> Those might be a good starting point for researching how to publish.
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:25 PM karthick rn <ka...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Christopher,
> >
> > Following the conversation from PR#12
> > <https://github.com/apache/accumulo-docker/pull/12>, I'm interested to
> > drive this forward and publish the image to Dockerhub. Let me know how
> > do I get in touch with INFRA?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Karthick
>
>
RE: accumulo-docker
Posted by Ed Coleman <de...@etcoleman.com>.
Does the NiFi community have an established process or procedure that they follow that we could copy as a guide? (https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/nifi/)
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher [mailto:ctubbsii@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 12:23 AM
To: accumulo-dev <de...@accumulo.apache.org>
Subject: Re: accumulo-docker
First, I don't know much about how Docker or Dockerhub works. I don't use docker often, and have never used Dockerhub. So that is a gap in my knowledge that will need to be filled by somebody else's expertise.
Before we distribute accumulo-docker code, we need to vote on a release.
Any PMC member can prepare a release candidate and initiate that vote.
(I'm willing to do it, once we figure out how the distribution should go.)
Before we vote, I'd like to us to have some idea of how we will label versions of accumulo-docker releases. Any opinions?
After we figure out release versioning and vote, I don't know what comes next.
I believe INFRA has an "organization" for Apache on Dockerhub... but we'd probably have to put in a ticket.
A search on JIRA shows some previous similar issues:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18167?jql=project%3DINFRA%20AND%20text~dockerhub
Those might be a good starting point for researching how to publish.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:25 PM karthick rn <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Christopher,
>
> Following the conversation from PR#12
> <https://github.com/apache/accumulo-docker/pull/12>, I'm interested to
> drive this forward and publish the image to Dockerhub. Let me know how
> do I get in touch with INFRA?
>
> Thanks,
> Karthick
Re: accumulo-docker
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
First, I don't know much about how Docker or Dockerhub works. I don't
use docker often, and have never used Dockerhub. So that is a gap in
my knowledge that will need to be filled by somebody else's expertise.
Before we distribute accumulo-docker code, we need to vote on a release.
Any PMC member can prepare a release candidate and initiate that vote.
(I'm willing to do it, once we figure out how the distribution should go.)
Before we vote, I'd like to us to have some idea of how we will label
versions of accumulo-docker releases. Any opinions?
After we figure out release versioning and vote, I don't know what comes next.
I believe INFRA has an "organization" for Apache on Dockerhub... but
we'd probably have to put in a ticket.
A search on JIRA shows some previous similar issues:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18167?jql=project%3DINFRA%20AND%20text~dockerhub
Those might be a good starting point for researching how to publish.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:25 PM karthick rn <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Christopher,
>
> Following the conversation from PR#12
> <https://github.com/apache/accumulo-docker/pull/12>, I'm interested to
> drive this forward and publish the image to Dockerhub. Let me know how do I
> get in touch with INFRA?
>
> Thanks,
> Karthick