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

Michał Jastrzębski inc007 at gmail.com
Tue May 16 13:52:12 UTC 2017

On 16 May 2017 at 06:20, Flavio Percoco <flavio at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 16/05/17 14:08 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Flavio Percoco wrote:
>>> 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.
>> I totally subscribe to the concerns around publishing binaries (under
>> any form), and the expectations in terms of security maintenance that it
>> would set on the publisher. At the same time, we need to have images
>> available, for convenience and testing. So what is the best way to
>> achieve that without setting strong security maintenance expectations
>> for the OpenStack community ? We have several options:
>> 1/ Have third-parties publish images
>> It is the current situation. The issue is that the Kolla team (and
>> likely others) would rather automate the process and use OpenStack
>> infrastructure for it.
>> 2/ Have third-parties publish images, but through OpenStack infra
>> This would allow to automate the process, but it would be a bit weird to
>> use common infra resources to publish in a private repo.
>> 3/ Publish transient (per-commit or daily) images
>> A "daily build" (especially if you replace it every day) would set
>> relatively-limited expectations in terms of maintenance. It would end up
>> picking up security updates in upstream layers, even if not immediately.
>> 4/ Publish images and own them
>> Staff release / VMT / stable team in a way that lets us properly own
>> those images and publish them officially.
>> Personally I think (4) is not realistic. I think we could make (3) work,
>> and I prefer it to (2). If all else fails, we should keep (1).
> Agreed #4 is a bit unrealistic.
> Not sure I understand the difference between #2 and #3. Is it just the
> cadence?
> I'd prefer for these builds to have a daily cadence because it sets the
> expectations w.r.t maintenance right: "These images are daily builds and not
> certified releases. For stable builds you're better off building it
> yourself"

And daily builds are exactly what I wanted in the first place:) We
probably will keep publishing release packages too, but we can be so
called 3rd party. I also agree [4] is completely unrealistic and I
would be against putting such heavy burden of responsibility on any
community, including Kolla.

While daily cadence will send message that it's not stable, truth will
be that it will be more stable than what people would normally build
locally (again, it passes more gates), but I'm totally fine in not
saying that and let people decide how they want to use it.

So, can we move on with implementation?


> Flavio
> --
> @flaper87
> Flavio Percoco
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list