airflow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ash Berlin-Taylor <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Tagging of the airflow images
Date Tue, 11 Jun 2019 20:33:33 GMT
I'm fine with us just publishing release images using the newest python release (i.e. 3.7)
as the main reason we support older python versions is to support distros thats ship those
versions.(i.e. Deb stable), but I don't think we need to support that in docker.

(But if it's easy to do since we want them for ci then sure)

-ash

On 11 June 2019 21:21:28 BST, Jarek Potiuk <Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com> wrote:
>Yeah Kamil - python 3.5 is the default one for now. I think we should
>have
>another discussion here - how many versions to support. There is this
>ticket opened today :
>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-4762 about
>supporting python 3.6 and 3.7 in tests. Anyone has a strong opinion on
>this? I am for testing on all 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 even if it increases the
>build/test time on Travis. There are a number of differences between
>those
>major versions (I have a blog post about it in writing ) but I think
>there
>is concern about eating Apache Travis time.
>
>Anyone against those three ?
>
>On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 8:38 PM Kamil BreguĊ‚a
><kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
>wrote:
>
>> 1) I would prefer to use one repository.
>> +1
>>
>> 2) The presented schema looks logical to me. I had doubts whether
>> Python 3.5 was a good choice for "latest" version, but I checked that
>> travis uses only this version.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:04 PM Jarek Potiuk
><Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello everyone,
>> >
>> > We are close to finish AIP-10 (Airlfow image for CI) and seems that
>we
>> will
>> > start working soon on an official image AIP, but in the meantime we
>have
>> > 1.10.4 release coming and we would like to agree tagging scheme
>used for
>> > the current CI images. We discussed it a bit on Slack, but it's
>time to
>> > bring it here. I created a JIRA issue for it:
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-4764  and my
>proposals
>> after
>> > the initial discussion are those:
>> >
>> > First of all we have different images that we can talk about :
>> >
>> >    1. "base" one - with bare development-ready airflow with minimum
>set
>> of
>> >    dependencies
>> >    2. "CI" with all the tools packages that are needed for CI tests
>> >    3. Soon we will likely have an "official" one which might be
>used in
>> >    similar fashion as the "puckel" one.
>> >
>> > There are two decisions to make:
>> >
>> > 1) How to keep those images - in one repository or whether we
>should have
>> > separate repos.
>> >
>> > It is easier for now to keep all of them within apache/airflow
>> >
><https://cloud.docker.com/u/apache/repository/docker/apache/airflow>
>> repository
>> > it seems and use a labelling scheme to separate those (there is
>nothing
>> > wrong with that but it might seem a bit hacky). It's a bit easier
>to
>> > maintain with access and CI.
>> >
>> > We could also think about separate apache/airflow-ci,
>apache/airflow-dev,
>> > apache/airflow-prod or smth similar - that would require some
>> > infrastructure tickets and is not very common.
>> >
>> > 2) What labelling scheme to use(apache/airflow:label). My proposal
>is
>> > similar to this (if we keep everything in the airflow repository)
>> >
>> >    - *latest* = latest released version (python 3.5)  = *
>> v1.10.3-python3.5*
>> >    - *master* = latest master version (python 3.5)  =
>> *v2.0.0dev0-python3.5*
>> >    - *v1.10.3-python3.5,v1.10.3-python3.6*  - released 1.10.3 with
>python
>> >    3.5/3.6
>> >    - *latest-ci *= latest released version of CI variant (python
>3.5)
>> >    *v1.10.3-ci-python3.5*
>> >    - *master-ci* = latest master version of CI variant (python 3.5)
>> >    *v2.0.0dev0-ci-python3.5*
>> >    - *v1.10.3-ci-python3.5, v1.10.3-ci-python3.6* - released 1.10.3
>with
>> >    python 3.5/3.6
>> >
>> >
>> > My preference is to keep all the images in one repo and use
>labelling
>> > scheme as above,
>> > but I am open to discuss this.
>> >
>> > J,
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Jarek Potiuk
>> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
>> >
>> > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
>> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>
>Jarek Potiuk
>Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
>
>M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
>[image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, 7-Bit, 0 bytes)
View raw message