[openstack-dev] [tc][infra][release][security][stable][kolla][loci][tripleo][docker][kubernetes] do we want to be publishing binary container images?

Flavio Percoco flavio at redhat.com
Tue May 16 13:15:22 UTC 2017

On 16/05/17 04:22 +0000, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>Forgive the top post – outlook ftw.
>I understand the concerns raised in this thread.  It is unclear if this thread is the feeling of two TC members or enough TC members care deeply about this issue to permanently limit OpenStack big tent projects’ ability to generate container images in various external artifact storage systems.  The point of discussion I see effectively raised in this thread is “OpenStack infra will not push images to dockerhub”.
>I’d like clarification if this is a ruling from the TC, or simply an exploratory discussion.
>If it is exploratory, it is prudent that OpenStack projects not be blocked by debate on this issue until the TC has made such ruling as to banning the creation of container images via OpenStack infrastructure.

Hey Steven,

It's nothing to do with the TC. It's a release management concern and I just
happen to have an opinion on it. :)

As Doug mentioned, OpenStack has (almost) never released binaries in any form.
This doesn't mean we can't revisit this "rule" but until that happens, the
concern stands.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Flavio Percoco <flavio at redhat.com>
>Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 7:00 PM
>To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][infra][release][security][stable][kolla][loci][tripleo][docker][kubernetes] do we want to be publishing binary container images?
>    On 15/05/17 12:32 -0700, Michał Jastrzębski wrote:
>    >On 15 May 2017 at 12:12, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com> wrote:
>    [huge snip]
>    >>> > I'm raising the issue here to get some more input into how to
>    >>> > proceed. Do other people think this concern is overblown? Can we
>    >>> > mitigate the risk by communicating through metadata for the images?
>    >>> > Should we stick to publishing build instructions (Dockerfiles, or
>    >>> > whatever) instead of binary images? Are there other options I haven't
>    >>> > mentioned?
>    >>>
>    >>> Today we do publish build instructions, that's what Kolla is. We also
>    >>> publish built containers already, just we do it manually on release
>    >>> today. If we decide to block it, I assume we should stop doing that
>    >>> too? That will hurt users who uses this piece of Kolla, and I'd hate
>    >>> to hurt our users:(
>    >>
>    >> Well, that's the question. Today we have teams publishing those
>    >> images themselves, right? And the proposal is to have infra do it?
>    >> That change could be construed to imply that there is more of a
>    >> relationship with the images and the rest of the community (remember,
>    >> folks outside of the main community activities do not always make
>    >> the same distinctions we do about teams). So, before we go ahead
>    >> with that, I want to make sure that we all have a chance to discuss
>    >> the policy change and its implications.
>    >
>    >Infra as vm running with infra, but team to publish it can be Kolla
>    >team. I assume we'll be responsible to keep these images healthy...
>    I think this is the gist of the concern and I'd like us to focus on it.
>    As someone that used to consume these images from kolla's dockerhub account
>    directly, I can confirm they are useful. However, I do share Doug's concern and
>    the impact this may have on the community.
>    From a release perspective, as Doug mentioned, we've avoided releasing projects
>    in any kind of built form. This was also one of the concerns I raised when
>    working on the proposal to support other programming languages. The problem of
>    releasing built images goes beyond the infrastructure requirements. It's the
>    message and the guarantees implied with the built product itself that are the
>    concern here. And I tend to agree with Doug that this might be a problem for us
>    as a community. Unfortunately, putting your name, Michal, as contact point is
>    not enough. Kolla is not the only project producing container images and we need
>    to be consistent in the way we release these images.
>    Nothing prevents people for building their own images and uploading them to
>    dockerhub. Having this as part of the OpenStack's pipeline is a problem.
>    Flavio
>    P.S: note this goes against my container(ish) interests but it's a
>    community-wide problem.
>    --
>    @flaper87
>    Flavio Percoco
>OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 862 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20170516/62ea2111/attachment.sig>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list