[DISCUSS] Creating a new repo to host Stateful Functions Dockerfiles
Locked
[DISCUSS] Creating a new repo to host Stateful Functions Dockerfiles
 
|
Hi Flink devs,
As part of a Stateful Functions release, we would like to publish Stateful Functions Docker images to Dockerhub as an official image. Some background context on Stateful Function images, for those who are not familiar with the project yet: - Stateful Function images are built on top of the Flink official images, with additional StateFun dependencies being added. You can take a look at the scripts we currently use to build the images locally for development purposes [1]. - They are quite important for user experience, since building a Docker image is the recommended go-to deployment mode for StateFun user applications [2]. A prerequisite for all of this is to first decide where we host the Stateful Functions Dockerfiles, before we can proceed with the process of requesting a new official image repository at Dockerhub. We’re proposing to create a new dedicated repo for this purpose, with the name `apache/flink-statefun-docker`. While we did initially consider integrating the StateFun Dockerfiles to be hosted together with the Flink ones in the existing `apache/flink-docker` repo, we had the following concerns: - In general, it is a convention that each official Dockerhub image is backed by a dedicated source repo hosting the Dockerfiles. - The `apache/flink-docker` repo already has quite a few dedicated tooling and CI smoke tests specific for the Flink images. - Flink and StateFun have separate versioning schemes and independent release cycles. A new Flink release does not necessarily require a “lock-step” to release new StateFun images as well. - Considering the above all-together, and the fact that creating a new repo is rather low-effort, having a separate repo would probably make more sense here. What do you think? Cheers, Gordon [1] https://github.com/apache/flink-statefun/blob/master/tools/docker/build-stateful-functions.sh [2] https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-statefun-docs-master/deployment-and-operations/packaging.html |
Re: [DISCUSS] Creating a new repo to host Stateful Functions Dockerfiles
|
+1 to a separate repository.
It seems to be best practice in the docker community. And since it does not add overhead, why not go with the best practice? Best, Stephan On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 4:15 PM Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi Flink devs, > > As part of a Stateful Functions release, we would like to publish Stateful > Functions Docker images to Dockerhub as an official image. > > Some background context on Stateful Function images, for those who are not > familiar with the project yet: > > - Stateful Function images are built on top of the Flink official > images, with additional StateFun dependencies being added. > You can take a look at the scripts we currently use to build the images > locally for development purposes [1]. > - They are quite important for user experience, since building a Docker > image is the recommended go-to deployment mode for StateFun user > applications [2]. > > > A prerequisite for all of this is to first decide where we host the > Stateful Functions Dockerfiles, > before we can proceed with the process of requesting a new official image > repository at Dockerhub. > > We’re proposing to create a new dedicated repo for this purpose, > with the name `apache/flink-statefun-docker`. > > While we did initially consider integrating the StateFun Dockerfiles to be > hosted together with the Flink ones in the existing `apache/flink-docker` > repo, we had the following concerns: > > - In general, it is a convention that each official Dockerhub image is > backed by a dedicated source repo hosting the Dockerfiles. > - The `apache/flink-docker` repo already has quite a few dedicated > tooling and CI smoke tests specific for the Flink images. > - Flink and StateFun have separate versioning schemes and independent > release cycles. A new Flink release does not necessarily require a > “lock-step” to release new StateFun images as well. > - Considering the above all-together, and the fact that creating a new > repo is rather low-effort, having a separate repo would probably make > more > sense here. > > > What do you think? > > Cheers, > Gordon > > [1] > > https://github.com/apache/flink-statefun/blob/master/tools/docker/build-stateful-functions.sh > [2] > > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-statefun-docs-master/deployment-and-operations/packaging.html > |
Re: [DISCUSS] Creating a new repo to host Stateful Functions Dockerfiles
|
|
+1.
The repo creation process is a light-weight, automated process on the ASF side. When Patrick Lucas contributed docker-flink back to the Flink community (as flink-docker), there was virtually no overhead in creating the repository. Reusing build scripts should still be possible at the cost of some duplication which is fine imo. – Ufuk On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 4:18 PM Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote: > > +1 to a separate repository. > > It seems to be best practice in the docker community. > And since it does not add overhead, why not go with the best practice? > > Best, > Stephan > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 4:15 PM Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai <[hidden email]> >> >> Hi Flink devs, >> >> As part of a Stateful Functions release, we would like to publish Stateful >> Functions Docker images to Dockerhub as an official image. >> >> Some background context on Stateful Function images, for those who are not >> familiar with the project yet: >> >> - Stateful Function images are built on top of the Flink official >> images, with additional StateFun dependencies being added. >> You can take a look at the scripts we currently use to build the images >> locally for development purposes [1]. >> - They are quite important for user experience, since building a Docker >> image is the recommended go-to deployment mode for StateFun user >> applications [2]. >> >> >> A prerequisite for all of this is to first decide where we host the >> Stateful Functions Dockerfiles, >> before we can proceed with the process of requesting a new official image >> repository at Dockerhub. >> >> We’re proposing to create a new dedicated repo for this purpose, >> with the name `apache/flink-statefun-docker`. >> >> While we did initially consider integrating the StateFun Dockerfiles to >> hosted together with the Flink ones in the existing `apache/flink-docker` >> repo, we had the following concerns: >> >> - In general, it is a convention that each official Dockerhub image is >> backed by a dedicated source repo hosting the Dockerfiles. >> - The `apache/flink-docker` repo already has quite a few dedicated >> tooling and CI smoke tests specific for the Flink images. >> - Flink and StateFun have separate versioning schemes and independent >> release cycles. A new Flink release does not necessarily require a >> “lock-step” to release new StateFun images as well. >> - Considering the above all-together, and the fact that creating a new >> repo is rather low-effort, having a separate repo would probably make >> sense here. >> >> >> What do you think? >> >> Cheers, >> Gordon >> >> [1] >> >> [2] >> https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-statefun-docs-master/deployment-and-operations/packaging.html |
Re: [DISCUSS] Creating a new repo to host Stateful Functions Dockerfiles
|
|
In reply to this post by Stephan Ewen
+1 for a separate repository.
Thanks, Igal On Thursday, March 26, 2020, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote: > +1 to a separate repository. > > It seems to be best practice in the docker community. > And since it does not add overhead, why not go with the best practice? > > Best, > Stephan > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 4:15 PM Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > > Hi Flink devs, > > > > As part of a Stateful Functions release, we would like to publish > Stateful > > Functions Docker images to Dockerhub as an official image. > > > > Some background context on Stateful Function images, for those who are > not > > familiar with the project yet: > > > > - Stateful Function images are built on top of the Flink official > > images, with additional StateFun dependencies being added. > > You can take a look at the scripts we currently use to build the > images > > locally for development purposes [1]. > > - They are quite important for user experience, since building a > Docker > > image is the recommended go-to deployment mode for StateFun user > > applications [2]. > > > > > > A prerequisite for all of this is to first decide where we host the > > Stateful Functions Dockerfiles, > > before we can proceed with the process of requesting a new official image > > repository at Dockerhub. > > > > We’re proposing to create a new dedicated repo for this purpose, > > with the name `apache/flink-statefun-docker`. > > > > While we did initially consider integrating the StateFun Dockerfiles to > be > > hosted together with the Flink ones in the existing `apache/flink-docker` > > repo, we had the following concerns: > > > > - In general, it is a convention that each official Dockerhub image is > > backed by a dedicated source repo hosting the Dockerfiles. > > - The `apache/flink-docker` repo already has quite a few dedicated > > tooling and CI smoke tests specific for the Flink images. > > - Flink and StateFun have separate versioning schemes and independent > > release cycles. A new Flink release does not necessarily require a > > “lock-step” to release new StateFun images as well. > > - Considering the above all-together, and the fact that creating a new > > repo is rather low-effort, having a separate repo would probably make > > more > > sense here. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > Cheers, > > Gordon > > > > [1] > > > > https://github.com/apache/flink-statefun/blob/master/ > tools/docker/build-stateful-functions.sh > > [2] > > > > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-statefun- > docs-master/deployment-and-operations/packaging.html > > > |
|
|
+1 to use a dedicated repository. All reasons listed in the proposal make
sense to me. Best Regards, Yu On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 at 23:56, Igal Shilman <[hidden email]> wrote: > +1 for a separate repository. > > Thanks, > Igal > > On Thursday, March 26, 2020, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > +1 to a separate repository. > > > > It seems to be best practice in the docker community. > > And since it does not add overhead, why not go with the best practice? > > > > Best, > > Stephan > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 4:15 PM Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai <[hidden email] > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Flink devs, > > > > > > As part of a Stateful Functions release, we would like to publish > > Stateful > > > Functions Docker images to Dockerhub as an official image. > > > > > > Some background context on Stateful Function images, for those who are > > not > > > familiar with the project yet: > > > > > > - Stateful Function images are built on top of the Flink official > > > images, with additional StateFun dependencies being added. > > > You can take a look at the scripts we currently use to build the > > images > > > locally for development purposes [1]. > > > - They are quite important for user experience, since building a > > Docker > > > image is the recommended go-to deployment mode for StateFun user > > > applications [2]. > > > > > > > > > A prerequisite for all of this is to first decide where we host the > > > Stateful Functions Dockerfiles, > > > before we can proceed with the process of requesting a new official > image > > > repository at Dockerhub. > > > > > > We’re proposing to create a new dedicated repo for this purpose, > > > with the name `apache/flink-statefun-docker`. > > > > > > While we did initially consider integrating the StateFun Dockerfiles to > > be > > > hosted together with the Flink ones in the existing > `apache/flink-docker` > > > repo, we had the following concerns: > > > > > > - In general, it is a convention that each official Dockerhub image > is > > > backed by a dedicated source repo hosting the Dockerfiles. > > > - The `apache/flink-docker` repo already has quite a few dedicated > > > tooling and CI smoke tests specific for the Flink images. > > > - Flink and StateFun have separate versioning schemes and > independent > > > release cycles. A new Flink release does not necessarily require a > > > “lock-step” to release new StateFun images as well. > > > - Considering the above all-together, and the fact that creating a > new > > > repo is rather low-effort, having a separate repo would probably > make > > > more > > > sense here. > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Gordon > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/flink-statefun/blob/master/ > > tools/docker/build-stateful-functions.sh > > > [2] > > > > > > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-statefun- > > docs-master/deployment-and-operations/packaging.html > > > > > > |
Re: [DISCUSS] Creating a new repo to host Stateful Functions Dockerfiles
|
In reply to this post by Ufuk Celebi-2
+1 for a separate repository.
Cheers, Till On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 5:13 PM Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]> wrote: > +1. > > The repo creation process is a light-weight, automated process on the ASF > side. When Patrick Lucas contributed docker-flink back to the Flink > community (as flink-docker), there was virtually no overhead in creating > the repository. Reusing build scripts should still be possible at the cost > of some duplication which is fine imo. > > – Ufuk > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 4:18 PM Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > +1 to a separate repository. > > > > It seems to be best practice in the docker community. > > And since it does not add overhead, why not go with the best practice? > > > > Best, > > Stephan > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 4:15 PM Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai <[hidden email] > > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Flink devs, > >> > >> As part of a Stateful Functions release, we would like to publish > Stateful > >> Functions Docker images to Dockerhub as an official image. > >> > >> Some background context on Stateful Function images, for those who are > not > >> familiar with the project yet: > >> > >> - Stateful Function images are built on top of the Flink official > >> images, with additional StateFun dependencies being added. > >> You can take a look at the scripts we currently use to build the > images > >> locally for development purposes [1]. > >> - They are quite important for user experience, since building a > Docker > >> image is the recommended go-to deployment mode for StateFun user > >> applications [2]. > >> > >> > >> A prerequisite for all of this is to first decide where we host the > >> Stateful Functions Dockerfiles, > >> before we can proceed with the process of requesting a new official > image > >> repository at Dockerhub. > >> > >> We’re proposing to create a new dedicated repo for this purpose, > >> with the name `apache/flink-statefun-docker`. > >> > >> While we did initially consider integrating the StateFun Dockerfiles to > be > >> hosted together with the Flink ones in the existing > `apache/flink-docker` > >> repo, we had the following concerns: > >> > >> - In general, it is a convention that each official Dockerhub image > is > >> backed by a dedicated source repo hosting the Dockerfiles. > >> - The `apache/flink-docker` repo already has quite a few dedicated > >> tooling and CI smoke tests specific for the Flink images. > >> - Flink and StateFun have separate versioning schemes and independent > >> release cycles. A new Flink release does not necessarily require a > >> “lock-step” to release new StateFun images as well. > >> - Considering the above all-together, and the fact that creating a > new > >> repo is rather low-effort, having a separate repo would probably make > more > >> sense here. > >> > >> > >> What do you think? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Gordon > >> > >> [1] > >> > > https://github.com/apache/flink-statefun/blob/master/tools/docker/build-stateful-functions.sh > >> [2] > >> > > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-statefun-docs-master/deployment-and-operations/packaging.html > |
Re: [DISCUSS] Creating a new repo to host Stateful Functions Dockerfiles
|
|
+1 for a separate repository.
The dedicated `flink-docker` repo works fine now. We can do it similarly. Best, Hequn On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 1:16 AM Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]> wrote: > +1 for a separate repository. > > Cheers, > Till > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 5:13 PM Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > +1. > > > > The repo creation process is a light-weight, automated process on the ASF > > side. When Patrick Lucas contributed docker-flink back to the Flink > > community (as flink-docker), there was virtually no overhead in creating > > the repository. Reusing build scripts should still be possible at the > cost > > of some duplication which is fine imo. > > > > – Ufuk > > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 4:18 PM Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > +1 to a separate repository. > > > > > > It seems to be best practice in the docker community. > > > And since it does not add overhead, why not go with the best practice? > > > > > > Best, > > > Stephan > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 4:15 PM Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai < > [hidden email] > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi Flink devs, > > >> > > >> As part of a Stateful Functions release, we would like to publish > > Stateful > > >> Functions Docker images to Dockerhub as an official image. > > >> > > >> Some background context on Stateful Function images, for those who are > > not > > >> familiar with the project yet: > > >> > > >> - Stateful Function images are built on top of the Flink official > > >> images, with additional StateFun dependencies being added. > > >> You can take a look at the scripts we currently use to build the > > images > > >> locally for development purposes [1]. > > >> - They are quite important for user experience, since building a > > Docker > > >> image is the recommended go-to deployment mode for StateFun user > > >> applications [2]. > > >> > > >> > > >> A prerequisite for all of this is to first decide where we host the > > >> Stateful Functions Dockerfiles, > > >> before we can proceed with the process of requesting a new official > > image > > >> repository at Dockerhub. > > >> > > >> We’re proposing to create a new dedicated repo for this purpose, > > >> with the name `apache/flink-statefun-docker`. > > >> > > >> While we did initially consider integrating the StateFun Dockerfiles > to > > be > > >> hosted together with the Flink ones in the existing > > `apache/flink-docker` > > >> repo, we had the following concerns: > > >> > > >> - In general, it is a convention that each official Dockerhub image > > is > > >> backed by a dedicated source repo hosting the Dockerfiles. > > >> - The `apache/flink-docker` repo already has quite a few dedicated > > >> tooling and CI smoke tests specific for the Flink images. > > >> - Flink and StateFun have separate versioning schemes and > independent > > >> release cycles. A new Flink release does not necessarily require a > > >> “lock-step” to release new StateFun images as well. > > >> - Considering the above all-together, and the fact that creating a > > new > > >> repo is rather low-effort, having a separate repo would probably > make > > more > > >> sense here. > > >> > > >> > > >> What do you think? > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> Gordon > > >> > > >> [1] > > >> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/flink-statefun/blob/master/tools/docker/build-stateful-functions.sh > > >> [2] > > >> > > > > > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-statefun-docs-master/deployment-and-operations/packaging.html > > > |
Re: [DISCUSS] Creating a new repo to host Stateful Functions Dockerfiles
|
|
+1 for a separate repository.
Best, Gary On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 2:46 AM Hequn Cheng <[hidden email]> wrote: > +1 for a separate repository. > The dedicated `flink-docker` repo works fine now. We can do it similarly. > > Best, > Hequn > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 1:16 AM Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > > +1 for a separate repository. > > > > Cheers, > > Till > > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 5:13 PM Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > +1. > > > > > > The repo creation process is a light-weight, automated process on the > ASF > > > side. When Patrick Lucas contributed docker-flink back to the Flink > > > community (as flink-docker), there was virtually no overhead in > creating > > > the repository. Reusing build scripts should still be possible at the > > cost > > > of some duplication which is fine imo. > > > > > > – Ufuk > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 4:18 PM Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > > +1 to a separate repository. > > > > > > > > It seems to be best practice in the docker community. > > > > And since it does not add overhead, why not go with the best > practice? > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Stephan > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 4:15 PM Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai < > > [hidden email] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Hi Flink devs, > > > >> > > > >> As part of a Stateful Functions release, we would like to publish > > > Stateful > > > >> Functions Docker images to Dockerhub as an official image. > > > >> > > > >> Some background context on Stateful Function images, for those who > are > > > not > > > >> familiar with the project yet: > > > >> > > > >> - Stateful Function images are built on top of the Flink official > > > >> images, with additional StateFun dependencies being added. > > > >> You can take a look at the scripts we currently use to build the > > > images > > > >> locally for development purposes [1]. > > > >> - They are quite important for user experience, since building a > > > Docker > > > >> image is the recommended go-to deployment mode for StateFun user > > > >> applications [2]. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> A prerequisite for all of this is to first decide where we host the > > > >> Stateful Functions Dockerfiles, > > > >> before we can proceed with the process of requesting a new official > > > image > > > >> repository at Dockerhub. > > > >> > > > >> We’re proposing to create a new dedicated repo for this purpose, > > > >> with the name `apache/flink-statefun-docker`. > > > >> > > > >> While we did initially consider integrating the StateFun Dockerfiles > > to > > > be > > > >> hosted together with the Flink ones in the existing > > > `apache/flink-docker` > > > >> repo, we had the following concerns: > > > >> > > > >> - In general, it is a convention that each official Dockerhub > image > > > is > > > >> backed by a dedicated source repo hosting the Dockerfiles. > > > >> - The `apache/flink-docker` repo already has quite a few > dedicated > > > >> tooling and CI smoke tests specific for the Flink images. > > > >> - Flink and StateFun have separate versioning schemes and > > independent > > > >> release cycles. A new Flink release does not necessarily require > a > > > >> “lock-step” to release new StateFun images as well. > > > >> - Considering the above all-together, and the fact that creating > a > > > new > > > >> repo is rather low-effort, having a separate repo would probably > > make > > > more > > > >> sense here. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> What do you think? > > > >> > > > >> Cheers, > > > >> Gordon > > > >> > > > >> [1] > > > >> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/flink-statefun/blob/master/tools/docker/build-stateful-functions.sh > > > >> [2] > > > >> > > > > > > > > > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-statefun-docs-master/deployment-and-operations/packaging.html > > > > > > |
Re: [DISCUSS] Creating a new repo to host Stateful Functions Dockerfiles
|
|
In reply to this post by Hequn Cheng-2
+1 for this proposal. Very reasonable analysis!
Best, Zhijiang ------------------------------------------------------------------ From:Hequn Cheng <[hidden email]> Send Time:2020 Mar. 27 (Fri.) 09:46 To:dev <[hidden email]> Cc:private <[hidden email]> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Creating a new repo to host Stateful Functions Dockerfiles +1 for a separate repository. The dedicated `flink-docker` repo works fine now. We can do it similarly. Best, Hequn On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 1:16 AM Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]> wrote: > +1 for a separate repository. > > Cheers, > Till > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 5:13 PM Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > +1. > > > > The repo creation process is a light-weight, automated process on the ASF > > side. When Patrick Lucas contributed docker-flink back to the Flink > > community (as flink-docker), there was virtually no overhead in creating > > the repository. Reusing build scripts should still be possible at the > cost > > of some duplication which is fine imo. > > > > – Ufuk > > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 4:18 PM Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > +1 to a separate repository. > > > > > > It seems to be best practice in the docker community. > > > And since it does not add overhead, why not go with the best practice? > > > > > > Best, > > > Stephan > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 4:15 PM Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai < > [hidden email] > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi Flink devs, > > >> > > >> As part of a Stateful Functions release, we would like to publish > > Stateful > > >> Functions Docker images to Dockerhub as an official image. > > >> > > >> Some background context on Stateful Function images, for those who are > > not > > >> familiar with the project yet: > > >> > > >> - Stateful Function images are built on top of the Flink official > > >> images, with additional StateFun dependencies being added. > > >> You can take a look at the scripts we currently use to build the > > images > > >> locally for development purposes [1]. > > >> - They are quite important for user experience, since building a > > Docker > > >> image is the recommended go-to deployment mode for StateFun user > > >> applications [2]. > > >> > > >> > > >> A prerequisite for all of this is to first decide where we host the > > >> Stateful Functions Dockerfiles, > > >> before we can proceed with the process of requesting a new official > > image > > >> repository at Dockerhub. > > >> > > >> We’re proposing to create a new dedicated repo for this purpose, > > >> with the name `apache/flink-statefun-docker`. > > >> > > >> While we did initially consider integrating the StateFun Dockerfiles > to > > be > > >> hosted together with the Flink ones in the existing > > `apache/flink-docker` > > >> repo, we had the following concerns: > > >> > > >> - In general, it is a convention that each official Dockerhub image > > is > > >> backed by a dedicated source repo hosting the Dockerfiles. > > >> - The `apache/flink-docker` repo already has quite a few dedicated > > >> tooling and CI smoke tests specific for the Flink images. > > >> - Flink and StateFun have separate versioning schemes and > independent > > >> release cycles. A new Flink release does not necessarily require a > > >> “lock-step” to release new StateFun images as well. > > >> - Considering the above all-together, and the fact that creating a > > new > > >> repo is rather low-effort, having a separate repo would probably > make > > more > > >> sense here. > > >> > > >> > > >> What do you think? > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> Gordon > > >> > > >> [1] > > >> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/flink-statefun/blob/master/tools/docker/build-stateful-functions.sh > > >> [2] > > >> > > > > > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-statefun-docs-master/deployment-and-operations/packaging.html > > > |
Re: [DISCUSS] Creating a new repo to host Stateful Functions Dockerfiles
|
|
Thanks for the feedbacks everyone!
Overall, everyone who replied is positive about creating a separate repo for the Stateful Functions Dockerfiles. Since such an action does not necessarily need a vote (as defined by the project bylaws), and we'd like the images to be available as soon as possible once the release is out, I'll proceed to create the repo and begin with the work on preparing the submission to the Docker Hub Official Images team. Cheers, Gordon On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 5:28 PM Zhijiang <[hidden email]> wrote: > +1 for this proposal. Very reasonable analysis! > > Best, > Zhijiang > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > From:Hequn Cheng <[hidden email]> > Send Time:2020 Mar. 27 (Fri.) 09:46 > To:dev <[hidden email]> > Cc:private <[hidden email]> > Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Creating a new repo to host Stateful Functions > Dockerfiles > > +1 for a separate repository. > The dedicated `flink-docker` repo works fine now. We can do it similarly. > > Best, > Hequn > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 1:16 AM Till Rohrmann <[hidden email] > > wrote: > > > +1 for a separate repository. > > > > Cheers, > > Till > > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 5:13 PM Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > +1. > > > > > > > The repo creation process is a light-weight, automated process on the ASF > > > side. When Patrick Lucas contributed docker-flink back to the Flink > > > > community (as flink-docker), there was virtually no overhead in creating > > > the repository. Reusing build scripts should still be possible at the > > cost > > > of some duplication which is fine imo. > > > > > > – Ufuk > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 4:18 PM Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > > +1 to a separate repository. > > > > > > > > It seems to be best practice in the docker community. > > > > > And since it does not add overhead, why not go with the best practice? > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Stephan > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 4:15 PM Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai < > > [hidden email] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Hi Flink devs, > > > >> > > > >> As part of a Stateful Functions release, we would like to publish > > > Stateful > > > >> Functions Docker images to Dockerhub as an official image. > > > >> > > > > >> Some background context on Stateful Function images, for those who are > > > not > > > >> familiar with the project yet: > > > >> > > > >> - Stateful Function images are built on top of the Flink official > > > >> images, with additional StateFun dependencies being added. > > > >> You can take a look at the scripts we currently use to build the > > > images > > > >> locally for development purposes [1]. > > > >> - They are quite important for user experience, since building a > > > Docker > > > >> image is the recommended go-to deployment mode for StateFun user > > > >> applications [2]. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> A prerequisite for all of this is to first decide where we host the > > > >> Stateful Functions Dockerfiles, > > > >> before we can proceed with the process of requesting a new official > > > image > > > >> repository at Dockerhub. > > > >> > > > >> We’re proposing to create a new dedicated repo for this purpose, > > > >> with the name `apache/flink-statefun-docker`. > > > >> > > > >> While we did initially consider integrating the StateFun Dockerfiles > > to > > > be > > > >> hosted together with the Flink ones in the existing > > > `apache/flink-docker` > > > >> repo, we had the following concerns: > > > >> > > > > >> - In general, it is a convention that each official Dockerhub image > > > is > > > >> backed by a dedicated source repo hosting the Dockerfiles. > > > > >> - The `apache/flink-docker` repo already has quite a few dedicated > > > >> tooling and CI smoke tests specific for the Flink images. > > > >> - Flink and StateFun have separate versioning schemes and > > independent > > > > >> release cycles. A new Flink release does not necessarily require a > > > >> “lock-step” to release new StateFun images as well. > > > > >> - Considering the above all-together, and the fact that creating a > > > new > > > >> repo is rather low-effort, having a separate repo would probably > > make > > > more > > > >> sense here. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> What do you think? > > > >> > > > >> Cheers, > > > >> Gordon > > > >> > > > >> [1] > > > >> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/flink-statefun/blob/master/tools/docker/build-stateful-functions.sh > > > >> [2] > > > >> > > > > > > > > > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-statefun-docs-master/deployment-and-operations/packaging.html > > > > > > > > |
Re: [DISCUSS] Creating a new repo to host Stateful Functions Dockerfiles
|
|
Repo has been created:
https://github.com/apache/flink-statefun-docker https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=flink-statefun-docker.git On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 3:57 PM Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai <[hidden email]> wrote: > Thanks for the feedbacks everyone! > Overall, everyone who replied is positive about creating a separate repo > for the Stateful Functions Dockerfiles. > Since such an action does not necessarily need a vote (as defined by the > project bylaws), and we'd like the images to be available as soon as > possible once the release is out, > I'll proceed to create the repo and begin with the work on preparing the > submission to the Docker Hub Official Images team. > > Cheers, > Gordon > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 5:28 PM Zhijiang <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> +1 for this proposal. Very reasonable analysis! >> >> Best, >> Zhijiang >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> From:Hequn Cheng <[hidden email]> >> Send Time:2020 Mar. 27 (Fri.) 09:46 >> To:dev <[hidden email]> >> Cc:private <[hidden email]> >> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Creating a new repo to host Stateful Functions >> Dockerfiles >> >> +1 for a separate repository. >> The dedicated `flink-docker` repo works fine now. We can do it similarly. >> >> Best, >> Hequn >> >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 1:16 AM Till Rohrmann <[hidden email] >> > wrote: >> >> > +1 for a separate repository. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Till >> > >> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 5:13 PM Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]> wrote: >> > >> > > +1. >> > > >> >> > > The repo creation process is a light-weight, automated process on the ASF >> > > side. When Patrick Lucas contributed docker-flink back to the Flink >> >> > > community (as flink-docker), there was virtually no overhead in creating >> > > the repository. Reusing build scripts should still be possible at the >> > cost >> > > of some duplication which is fine imo. >> > > >> > > – Ufuk >> > > >> > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 4:18 PM Stephan Ewen <[hidden email] >> > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > +1 to a separate repository. >> > > > >> > > > It seems to be best practice in the docker community. >> >> > > > And since it does not add overhead, why not go with the best practice? >> > > > >> > > > Best, >> > > > Stephan >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 4:15 PM Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai < >> > [hidden email] >> > > > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >> Hi Flink devs, >> > > >> >> > > >> As part of a Stateful Functions release, we would like to publish >> > > Stateful >> > > >> Functions Docker images to Dockerhub as an official image. >> > > >> >> >> > > >> Some background context on Stateful Function images, for those who are >> > > not >> > > >> familiar with the project yet: >> > > >> >> >> > > >> - Stateful Function images are built on top of the Flink official >> > > >> images, with additional StateFun dependencies being added. >> > > >> You can take a look at the scripts we currently use to build the >> > > images >> > > >> locally for development purposes [1]. >> > > >> - They are quite important for user experience, since building a >> > > Docker >> > > >> image is the recommended go-to deployment mode for StateFun user >> > > >> applications [2]. >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> A prerequisite for all of this is to first decide where we host the >> > > >> Stateful Functions Dockerfiles, >> > > >> before we can proceed with the process of requesting a new official >> > > image >> > > >> repository at Dockerhub. >> > > >> >> > > >> We’re proposing to create a new dedicated repo for this purpose, >> > > >> with the name `apache/flink-statefun-docker`. >> > > >> >> >> > > >> While we did initially consider integrating the StateFun Dockerfiles >> > to >> > > be >> > > >> hosted together with the Flink ones in the existing >> > > `apache/flink-docker` >> > > >> repo, we had the following concerns: >> > > >> >> >> > > >> - In general, it is a convention that each official Dockerhub image >> > > is >> > > >> backed by a dedicated source repo hosting the Dockerfiles. >> >> > > >> - The `apache/flink-docker` repo already has quite a few dedicated >> > > >> tooling and CI smoke tests specific for the Flink images. >> > > >> - Flink and StateFun have separate versioning schemes and >> > independent >> >> > > >> release cycles. A new Flink release does not necessarily require a >> > > >> “lock-step” to release new StateFun images as well. >> >> > > >> - Considering the above all-together, and the fact that creating a >> > > new >> > > >> repo is rather low-effort, having a separate repo would probably >> > make >> > > more >> > > >> sense here. >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> What do you think? >> > > >> >> > > >> Cheers, >> > > >> Gordon >> > > >> >> > > >> [1] >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/flink-statefun/blob/master/tools/docker/build-stateful-functions.sh >> > > >> [2] >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-statefun-docs-master/deployment-and-operations/packaging.html >> > > >> > >> >> >> |
«
Return to (DEPRECATED) Apache Flink Mailing List archive.
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |