flink-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From GitBox <...@apache.org>
Subject [GitHub] [flink-statefun] uce commented on a change in pull request #127: [hotfix] [docs] Fix typos
Date Wed, 01 Jul 2020 09:31:25 GMT

uce commented on a change in pull request #127:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink-statefun/pull/127#discussion_r448238791



##########
File path: docs/deployment-and-operations/packaging.md
##########
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ The provided base image allows teams to package their applications with
all the
 Below is an example Dockerfile for building a Stateful Functions image with both an [embedded
module]({{ site.baseurl }}/sdk/modules.html#embedded-module) and a [remote module]({{ site.baseurl
}}/sdk/modules.html#remote-module) for an application called ``statefun-example``.
 
 {% highlight dockerfile %}
-FROM flink-statefun:{{ site.version }}
+FROM ververica/flink-statefun:{{ site.version }}

Review comment:
       I agree that `flink-statefun` without the `ververica` repository is preferrable, but
I think we haven't published the image as an official library image yet (at least I can't
`docker pull flink-statefun:2.1.0`), right?
   
   My reasoning for the change was that with the `ververica` repository prefix the Dockerfile
snippets work without requiring users to manually build the statefun image locally. What do
you think?
   
   (I'm happy to revert this change. I actually kept it as a separate commit, because I was
expecting that this might have been on purpose.)




----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org



Mime
View raw message