You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openwhisk.apache.org by David P Grove <gr...@us.ibm.com> on 2019/07/03 20:23:06 UTC
rationale for wskdeploy Docker image
Do we really need to be publishing a wskdeploy image to dockerhub?
I'm not understanding why this image needs to be public (it appears to
perhaps be an image for building wskdeploy?).
thanks,
--dave
Re: Re: rationale for wskdeploy Docker image
Posted by David P Grove <gr...@us.ibm.com>.
Rodric Rabbah <ro...@gmail.com> wrote on 07/09/2019 04:12:53 AM:
>
> I’d like to also ask at the risk of broadening the original question:
>
> - should we fold the repository into the cli?
> - or is there a good reason to keep it as a separate deploy tool
> independent of the cli?
I'd be in favor of merging wskdeploy into the cli repo unless there is a
strong reason to keep it separate.
--dave
Re: Re: Re: Re: rationale for wskdeploy Docker image
Posted by Matt Rutkowski <mr...@us.ibm.com>.
Agree... the ow-utils should have wskdeploy as long as it can be
independently
From: "David P Grove" <gr...@us.ibm.com>
To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
Date: 07/09/2019 12:59 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: Re: rationale for wskdeploy Docker
image
"Matt Rutkowski" <mr...@us.ibm.com> wrote on 07/09/2019 01:32:22 PM:
> ....
> FWIW, I think server-side wskdeploy
> usage is a great feature with lots of potential and then having the
> convenience binary avail (that matches the wskdeploy client version) may
> have value.
>
Thanks Matt, the use case makes sense.
It seems like going forward the use case could be covered by the ow-utils
image in the name of image consolidation?
We put the wsk cli into ow-utils and wskdeploy functionality is now
available via the `wsk project` subcommands. Is that enough?
--dave
Re: Re: Re: rationale for wskdeploy Docker image
Posted by David P Grove <gr...@us.ibm.com>.
"Matt Rutkowski" <mr...@us.ibm.com> wrote on 07/09/2019 01:32:22 PM:
> ....
> FWIW, I think server-side wskdeploy
> usage is a great feature with lots of potential and then having the
> convenience binary avail (that matches the wskdeploy client version) may
> have value.
>
Thanks Matt, the use case makes sense.
It seems like going forward the use case could be covered by the ow-utils
image in the name of image consolidation?
We put the wsk cli into ow-utils and wskdeploy functionality is now
available via the `wsk project` subcommands. Is that enough?
--dave
Re: Re: rationale for wskdeploy Docker image
Posted by Matt Rutkowski <mr...@apache.org>.
Previously, when weighing the merging of wskdeploy into CLI, it seemed that the CLI was a good "base" for CRUD operations (commands) against the OW primitives... and that indeed wskdeploy was a great "plug-in" bringing in higher order concepts (some of which are not official OW primitives).
In addition, and as a result of the added complexity, the wskdeploy codebase is quite large and fear that it would both increase the complexity of maintaining the CLI, as well as reduce experimentation (e.g., perhaps towards leveraging other deployment targets like knative and bringing in source-to-image pipelines like Jib/Tekton). Still fall on the side of keeping the CLI simple and CRUD based around our existing primitives, but deserves continued discussion over time.
-Matt
>
> From: Rodric Rabbah <ro...@gmail.com>
> To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
> Date: 07/09/2019 03:13 AM
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: rationale for wskdeploy Docker image
>
>
>
> I think we don’t need it but defer to those who worked on it.
>
> I’d like to also ask at the risk of broadening the original question:
>
> - should we fold the repository into the cli?
> - or is there a good reason to keep it as a separate deploy tool
> independent of the cli?
>
> -r
>
> > On Jul 3, 2019, at 4:23 PM, David P Grove <gr...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Do we really need to be publishing a wskdeploy image to dockerhub?
> >
> > I'm not understanding why this image needs to be public (it appears to
> > perhaps be an image for building wskdeploy?).
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > --dave
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re: rationale for wskdeploy Docker image
Posted by Matt Rutkowski <mr...@us.ibm.com>.
I too questioned the "wskdeploy" image (need) during my review, but
assumed someone (likely in IBM but perhaps elsewhere as well) may still be
using it for server-side deployment; that is, they utilize the image from
the https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-package-deploy project
(which indicates it is hardcoded to an old iamge tag, but users likely
ref. "latest").
However, when I reached out to a logical contact who worked on this
functionality within IBM, she indicated that she was not aware if this
image was being actively used/referenced any longer (although I suspect it
is). Was hoping Mark Deuser would comment if this is being used by IBM to
deploy packages server-side any longer.
It is my belief something will break somewhere for some user, but until
(if) package-deploy becomes a released repo. (which perhaps may morph the
discussion) and no one steps up ... FWIW, I think server-side wskdeploy
usage is a great feature with lots of potential and then having the
convenience binary avail (that matches the wskdeploy client version) may
have value.
-Matt
From: Rodric Rabbah <ro...@gmail.com>
To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
Date: 07/09/2019 03:13 AM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: rationale for wskdeploy Docker image
I think we don’t need it but defer to those who worked on it.
I’d like to also ask at the risk of broadening the original question:
- should we fold the repository into the cli?
- or is there a good reason to keep it as a separate deploy tool
independent of the cli?
-r
> On Jul 3, 2019, at 4:23 PM, David P Grove <gr...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
> Do we really need to be publishing a wskdeploy image to dockerhub?
>
> I'm not understanding why this image needs to be public (it appears to
> perhaps be an image for building wskdeploy?).
>
> thanks,
>
> --dave
>
Re: rationale for wskdeploy Docker image
Posted by Rodric Rabbah <ro...@gmail.com>.
I think we don’t need it but defer to those who worked on it.
I’d like to also ask at the risk of broadening the original question:
- should we fold the repository into the cli?
- or is there a good reason to keep it as a separate deploy tool independent of the cli?
-r
> On Jul 3, 2019, at 4:23 PM, David P Grove <gr...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
> Do we really need to be publishing a wskdeploy image to dockerhub?
>
> I'm not understanding why this image needs to be public (it appears to
> perhaps be an image for building wskdeploy?).
>
> thanks,
>
> --dave
>