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 19:55:56 GMT
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:36 PM, Clemens Stolle
<> wrote:
>> Am 25.01.2016 um 20:04 schrieb Alexander Shorin <>:
>> 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.
> This is confusing. The ubuntu packages are listed in the download section on the website.
I think I’ll just keep building from source.

Oh...really. Seems like I miss something. Then you can try (:

>>>>> - 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 outdated for now and quickly becomes after each rebase.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?
> While I’d be all for it, according to this comment [1] the Docker folks would prefer
not to do that.
> [1]
> Maybe once there are official pre-releases like alphas, betas or RCs it’s more feasible.

Ok, seems like there is nothing much to do then.


View raw message