couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexander Shorin <>
Subject Re: Applied for official Docker image
Date Mon, 25 Jan 2016 19:04:16 GMT
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Clemens Stolle
<> wrote:
>> Am 25.01.2016 um 11:44 schrieb Alexander Shorin <>:
>> Hi Clemens!
>> My own opinion below:
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Clemens Stolle
>> <> wrote:
>>> - Should we use ubuntu and the PPA instead of building from source? The ubuntu
base image is 60MB bigger than debian's.
>> We don't provide any PPA builds to use, especially for 2.0, today.
>> Ubuntu vs debian - doesn't matter for me.
> I was referring to this PPA
> Isn’t it maintained by the CouchDB project? I guess my question is if it were preferable
to use such a pre-built package instead of building from source.

Well, Dave is indeed a member of CouchDB team, but I cannot recall
that we discussed any PPA during release preparation. I added him to
CC, so may be he can clarify this moment.
Currently, all our official artefacts are listed on website download section.

>>> - Building from git branches is not feasible in official images. Are there tags
or pre-release snapshots for 2.0?
>> There was developer-preview-2.0 branch for that purpose, but it's
>> outdated for now and quickly becomes after each rebase. For current
>> state of 2.0 I don't see any point to add special intermediate tags
>> for reproduceable builds.
>> Also, it may be a bit rushy to include 2.0 image into officials as
>> people may accidentally thought that this version is released while
>> that's not true.
> The docker image for 2.0 is currently tagged as 2.0-dev to make it clear that it’s
a developer preview. It could also be called 2.0-alpha. Maybe 2.0 isn’t ready for the official
image, but it should be docker-available somewhere to ease testing.

I have crazy idea, but tell me if it's possible to: bound 2.0-alpha
image to specific git commit hash on apache/couchdb repo, but update
this image on weekly basis. So, for today that will be
2.0-alpha-20160125 that points on 3619c80 commit. On the next week you
publish 2.0-alpha-20160201 that points to hypothetical feeddeef
commit. And so on. So, these images are get rotated, they provides
reproducible builds and clearly tells you for what state they were
made. Older images could be removed during rotation. Whole process
could be easily automated.

What do you think about this?


View raw message