nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Wilcsinszky <peterwilcsins...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Tar + Gzip vs. Zip
Date Fri, 29 Jun 2018 11:10:58 GMT
Hi,

I wrote about a different solution for which I implemented a PoC for in
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/6122674030b8f99a63d586dcdbdaf6b31841572aed63fcc9dcfb5eea@%3Cdev.nifi.apache.org%3E
but multistage build could be a better option and I'm happy to create an
issue and fix it for the next release.

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 3:42 AM Andy LoPresto <alopresto@apache.org> wrote:

> Thanks Aldrin. I am not knowledgeable on Docker — do either of these
> options help us? We could also use a RUN to curl the Zip resource and COPY
> the unzipped directory?
>
> [1] https://github.com/moby/moby/issues/15036#issuecomment-322177465
> [2] https://github.com/jlhawn/dockramp
>
>
> Andy LoPresto
> alopresto@apache.org
> *alopresto.apache@gmail.com <alopresto.apache@gmail.com>*
> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69
>
> On Jun 28, 2018, at 6:22 PM, Aldrin Piri <aldrinpiri@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Be mindful to also update the Dockerfile used for Docker Hub as this will
> require some adjustments.  Unfortunately, the ADD instruction does not
> support zip files.  This isn't a major inconvenience but will require a
> multi-stage build to help keep our image size svelte.  I believe we should
> be safe as we have been publishing both tarballs and zips for prior
> releases, so the Dockerfile should still work in that scenario.
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 4:06 PM Andy LoPresto <alopresto@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks for everyone’s input. It seems to be a clear consensus to eliminate
> .tar.gz and only provide .zip moving forward. I’d like to keep this
> discussion thread going for another day or two to field any objections.
> After that time (Friday-ish), I’ll create a Jira to do this unless things
> change.
>
> I will probably keep the possibility to generate the .tar.gz through an
> inactive profile to allow people who need that offering to use it. There
> will be a subtask Jira to update the release guide moving forward as well.
>
>
> Andy LoPresto
> alopresto@apache.org
> *alopresto.apache@gmail.com <alopresto.apache@gmail.com>*
> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69
>
> On Jun 26, 2018, at 7:52 PM, James Wing <jvwing@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It's a great idea, Andy, I strongly support just one format.  I think Zip
> is a good choice.
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:16 AM Otto Fowler <ottobackwards@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I end up using zip all the time.  zip +1
>
>
> On June 26, 2018 at 13:30:33, Tony Kurc (tkurc@apache.org) wrote:
>
> My preference is zip.
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018, 9:21 AM Josh Elser <elserj@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/25/18 11:34 PM, Andy LoPresto wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I do not want to start a long-running argument or entrenched battle.
> However, having just performed the RM duties for the latest release, I
> believe I have identified a resource inefficiency in the fact that we
> generate, upload, host, and distribute two compressed archives of the
> binary which are functionally equivalent. For 1.7.0, both the .tar.gz
> and .zip files are 1.2 GB (1_224_352_000 bytes for tar.gz vs.
> 1_224_392_000 bytes for zip). The time to build and sign these is
> substantial, but the true cost comes in uploading and hosting them.
> While the fabled extension registry will save all of us from this
> burden, it isn’t arriving tomorrow, and I think we could drastically
> improve this before the next release.
>
> I have no personal preference between the two formats. In earlier days,
> there were platform inconsistencies and the tools weren’t available on
> all systems, but now they are pretty standard for all users. This [1]
>
> is
>
> an interesting article I found which had some good info on the origins,
> and here are some additional resources for anyone interested [2][3]. I
> don’t care which we pick, but I propose removing one of the options for
> the build going forward (toolkit as well).
>
> That said, if someone has a good reason that both are necessary, I
>
> would
>
> love to hear it. I didn’t find anything on the Apache Release Policy
> which stated we must offer both, but maybe I missed it. Thanks.
>
>
> I'm not aware of any ASF policy. I think it mostly stems from default
> convention you get out of the maven-assembly-plugin.
>
> [1] https://itsfoss.com/tar-vs-zip-vs-gz/
> [2] https://superuser.com/a/1257441/40003
> [3] https://superuser.com/a/173995/40003
> [4] https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#artifacts
>
>
> Andy LoPresto
> alopresto@apache.org <mailto:alopresto@apache.org <alopresto@apache.org>>
> /alopresto.apache@gmail.com <mailto:alopresto.apache@gmail.com
> <alopresto.apache@gmail.com>>/
> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message