From dev-return-8659-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@airflow.apache.org Tue Jun 11 20:33:38 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [207.244.88.153]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 826E0180627 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 22:33:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 44642 invoked by uid 500); 11 Jun 2019 20:33:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@airflow.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@airflow.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@airflow.apache.org Received: (qmail 44630 invoked by uid 99); 11 Jun 2019 20:33:36 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO mailrelay1-lw-us.apache.org) (10.10.3.159) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 20:33:36 +0000 Received: from [192.168.152.217] (231.25.169.217.in-addr.arpa [217.169.25.231]) by mailrelay1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mailrelay1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPSA id B16FE8B3C; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 20:33:35 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 21:33:33 +0100 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----AEGVIM0ITZ9XYQVHVIEX0IS8R3JLXY" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Tagging of the airflow images To: dev@airflow.apache.org,Jarek Potiuk From: Ash Berlin-Taylor Message-ID: ------AEGVIM0ITZ9XYQVHVIEX0IS8R3JLXY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm fine with us just publishing release images using the newest python rel= ease (i=2Ee=2E 3=2E7) as the main reason we support older python versions i= s to support distros thats ship those versions=2E(i=2Ee=2E Deb stable), but= I don't think we need to support that in docker=2E (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 = wrote: >Yeah Kamil - python 3=2E5 is the default one for now=2E I think we should >have >another discussion here - how many versions to support=2E There is this >ticket opened today : >https://issues=2Eapache=2Eorg/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-4762 about >supporting python 3=2E6 and 3=2E7 in tests=2E Anyone has a strong opinion= on >this? I am for testing on all 3=2E5, 3=2E6 and 3=2E7 even if it increases= the >build/test time on Travis=2E 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=2E > >Anyone against those three ? > >On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 8:38 PM Kamil Bregu=C5=82a > >wrote: > >> 1) I would prefer to use one repository=2E >> +1 >> >> 2) The presented schema looks logical to me=2E I had doubts whether >> Python 3=2E5 was a good choice for "latest" version, but I checked that >> travis uses only this version=2E >> >> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:04 PM Jarek Potiuk > >> 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=2E10=2E4 release coming and we would like to agree tagging scheme >used for >> > the current CI images=2E We discussed it a bit on Slack, but it's >time to >> > bring it here=2E I created a JIRA issue for it: >> > https://issues=2Eapache=2Eorg/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=2E "base" one - with bare development-ready airflow with minimum >set >> of >> > dependencies >> > 2=2E "CI" with all the tools packages that are needed for CI tests >> > 3=2E Soon we will likely have an "official" one which might be >used in >> > similar fashion as the "puckel" one=2E >> > >> > There are two decisions to make: >> > >> > 1) How to keep those images - in one repository or whether we >should have >> > separate repos=2E >> > >> > It is easier for now to keep all of them within 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)=2E It's a bit easier >to >> > maintain with access and CI=2E >> > >> > 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=2E >> > >> > 2) What labelling scheme to use(apache/airflow:label)=2E My proposal >is >> > similar to this (if we keep everything in the airflow repository) >> > >> > - *latest* =3D latest released version (python 3=2E5) =3D * >> v1=2E10=2E3-python3=2E5* >> > - *master* =3D latest master version (python 3=2E5) =3D >> *v2=2E0=2E0dev0-python3=2E5* >> > - *v1=2E10=2E3-python3=2E5,v1=2E10=2E3-python3=2E6* - released 1= =2E10=2E3 with >python >> > 3=2E5/3=2E6 >> > - *latest-ci *=3D latest released version of CI variant (python >3=2E5) >> > *v1=2E10=2E3-ci-python3=2E5* >> > - *master-ci* =3D latest master version of CI variant (python 3=2E= 5) >> > *v2=2E0=2E0dev0-ci-python3=2E5* >> > - *v1=2E10=2E3-ci-python3=2E5, v1=2E10=2E3-ci-python3=2E6* - relea= sed 1=2E10=2E3 >with >> > python 3=2E5/3=2E6 >> > >> > >> > My preference is to keep all the images in one repo and use >labelling >> > scheme as above, >> > but I am open to discuss this=2E >> > >> > J, >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > Jarek Potiuk >> > Polidea | Principal Software Engineer >> > >> > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> >> > [image: Polidea] >> > > >--=20 > >Jarek Potiuk >Polidea | Principal Software Engineer > >M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> >[image: Polidea] ------AEGVIM0ITZ9XYQVHVIEX0IS8R3JLXY--