[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 13:57:04 UTC 2017

On 16 May 2017 at 06:22, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2017-05-16 14:08:07 +0200:
>> 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).
> At the forum we talked about putting test images on a "private"
> repository hosted on openstack.org somewhere. I think that's option
> 3 from your list?
> Paul may be able to shed more light on the details of the technology
> (maybe it's just an Apache-served repo, rather than a full blown
> instance of Docker's service, for example).

Issue with that is

1. Apache served is harder to use because we want to follow docker API
and we'd have to reimplement it
2. Running registry is single command
3. If we host in in infra, in case someone actually uses it (there
will be people like that), that will eat up lot of network traffic
4. With local caching of images (working already) in nodepools we
loose complexity of mirroring registries across nodepools

So bottom line, having dockerhub/quay.io is simply easier.

> Doug
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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