[infra][tc] Container images in openstack/ on Docker Hub

Mohammed Naser mnaser at vexxhost.com
Mon Jan 28 15:24:21 UTC 2019

On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 8:41 AM Sean Mooney <smooney at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-01-28 at 13:06 +0000, Chris Dent wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> >
> > > I'm leaning toward status quo: unless we consistently publish containers for
> > > most (or even all) deliverables, we should keep them in separate namespaces.
> >
> > That makes a lot of sense but another way to look at it is:
> >
> > If we start publishing some containers into a consistent namespace
> > it might encourage projects to start owning "blessed" containers of
> > themselves, which is probably a good thing.
> well that raises the question of what type of containter someinthing like
> opesntac/nova should be
> a kolla container
> a loci container
> lxd containers
> a container build with pbr the way zuul is published.
> someting else determined by the porject?
> having yet another way to build openstack container is proably
> not a good thing.
> even if a common way of building the container was agreed on
> there is also the question of what base os is it derived form.
> finding a vender neutral answer to the above that does not "play favorites"
> with projects, distros or technologies will be challenging.
> >
> > And having a location with vacancies might encourage people to fill\
> > it, whereas otherwise the incentive is weak.
> there are already pretty complete set of offical containers from the kolla
> project on dockerhub here https://hub.docker.com/u/kolla/ and less so from loci
> here https://hub.docker.com/u/loci and https://hub.docker.com/u/gantry
> >
> > > A centralized "openstack" namespace conveys some official-ness and
> > > completeness -- it would make sense if we published all deliverablkes as
> > > containers every cycle as part of the release management work, for example.
> > > If it only contains a few select containers published at different times
> > > under different rules, it's likely to be more confusing than helping...
> >
> > The current container situation is already pretty confusing...
> >

I think we should all agree to a certain set of way that we publish
our Docker images,
in the same sense that we have one way of publishing Python packages
(i.e. for the
most part using pbr, etc).

I know the Zuul team has done work around pbrx, we also have a lot of
domain knowledge
from the Kolla and LOCI teams.  I'm sure that by working together, we
can come up
with a well thought-out process of official image deliverables.

I would also be in favor of basing it on top of a simple python base
image (which I believe
comes through Debian), however, the story of delivering something that
includes binaries
becomes interesting.

Perhaps, we should come up with the first initial step of providing a
common way of
building images (so a use can clone a repo and do 'docker build .')
which will eliminate
the obligation of having to deal with binaries, and then afterwards
reconsider the ideal
way of shipping those out.

Mohammed Naser — vexxhost
D. 514-316-8872
D. 800-910-1726 ext. 200
E. mnaser at vexxhost.com
W. http://vexxhost.com

More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list