Transfer library maintenance to the Apache Storm Project

[rzo1]

The Apache Storm project will be taking over maintenance of the official storm image as per https://lists.apache.org/thread/34kkzbcfr4qxcxmclgqmjc08o9s28gjz from the previous maintainer @31z4

The mail goes to the project's developer list responsible for releases and administration. I also added @jnioche and myself from the Storm PMC.

In the long run, we want to publish the images from the Storm PMC under apache/storm on DockerHub. However, (for now) we just want to take control over the publishing of this official image, which wasn't maintained for the last few months.

Transferring the repo (instead of forking) to the ASF organization on GitHub would be much more overhead compared to loosing the few issues / prs on the original repo. I hope, that this is ok because we want to switch to apache/storm on DockerHub in the near future anyway.

ASF Infra told me, that a redirect from storm to apache/storm on DockerHub isn't feasable / possible at the moment, so perhaps best to get control here, put up an image for 2.6.0 and than update the README on DockerHub and start distributing under apache/storm. Thoughts are welcome, though.

[github-actions]

Diff for b419fcb:

diff --git a/_bashbrew-cat b/_bashbrew-cat
index 4e38a12..f35a991 100644
--- a/_bashbrew-cat
+++ b/_bashbrew-cat
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
-Maintainers: Elisey Zanko <elisey.zanko@gmail.com> (@31z4)
+Maintainers: The Apache Storm Project <dev@storm.apache.org> (@asfbot), Julien Nioche (@jnioche), Richard Zowalla (@rzo1)
 Architectures: amd64, arm64v8
-GitRepo: https://github.com/31z4/storm-docker.git
+GitRepo: https://github.com/apache/storm-docker.git
 
 Tags: 1.2.4-temurin, 1.2-temurin
 GitCommit: 14c749848c8ff7c955f2b29c57e327ae80fbbb7e

Relevant Maintainers:

• storm: @31z4

[yosifkit]

So, first thing: welcome! 🎉 🎊

Thanks for adding an email as well as a few GitHub handles. Each PR to update the library/storm file will @ those users so that y'all are aware and are involved in changes submitted. We very rarely send emails to an image maintainer, so the dev list will work fine.

Transferring the repo (instead of forking) to the ASF organization on GitHub would be much more overhead compared to loosing the few issues / prs on the original repo. I hope, that this is ok

Yeah this is fine. We understand that moving repos is complicated in GitHub (and more so with an organization). I don't see any open issues or PRs and I'd suppose anything learned in the closed issues or PRs is already incorporated into the image or docs.

In the long run, we want to publish the images from the Storm PMC under apache/storm on DockerHub. However, (for now) we just want to take control over the publishing of this official image, which wasn't maintained for the last few months.
[...]
ASF Infra told me, that a redirect from storm to apache/storm on DockerHub isn't feasable / possible at the moment, so perhaps best to get control here, put up an image for 2.6.0 and than update the README on DockerHub and start distributing under apache/storm. Thoughts are welcome, though.

It is a little strange to take over the image maintenance to plan to deprecate it, but it is understandable. We'd be happy to have you continue publishing in Docker Official Images, but know that it might be more maintenance than you have time. A quick summary of the benefits in DOI:

• we build and push all the images
• we automatically rebuild the image when the base image is updated to incorporate any possible OS package updates
• all architectures build on native processors (32bit arches are build on 64bit processors with backwards compatible ISAs using linux32)
  • images are published as OCI image indexes in the top level namespace (docker pull storm)
• we review every Dockerfile and build context change
• we provide a git repo for updating Docker Hub descriptions (and automatically add current image tags with links to their Dockerfiles)
• soon, more DOI will also include SBOMs and provenance attestations

It is correct that there is no way to redirect image pulls. The two main ways we have to notify users are adding a "Deprecation Notice" to the Docker Hub page description (like consul) and deleting image tags. We don't recommend asking us to delete very many tags as it is more disruptive for users (but it also will force them faster to the new namespace if there is an equivalent image release).

Judging from the Storm download page, it seems that all but the new 2.6.0 is end of life and could be dropped from the library/storm file when you add 2.6. Removing it here will remove it from the "Supported" section on the Hub readme (and will prevent us from spending cycles rebuilding it on the official build server), but the tag will still be available to users who want it.

See the docker-library/docs repo for updating the description on Docker Hub (in the storm directory). Likely you'll want to at least update github-repo, maintainer.md and add a get-help.md (these will update the generated links, the Maintained by section, and the Where to get help section); feel free to update other files as desired (like content.md).

Our FAQ repo might answer other questions.

One final thought, if you are able to chat a little about how you view DOI and DSOS on Docker Hub, we'd love to get your opinions. Please send an email to britney.blodget at Docker.

[tianon]

I guess this also means https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1836 can finally close? 😄 ❤️

[rzo1]

Thanks for the reviews and links to the repository for the documentation (readme). We will have a look and adjust it accordingly. Also we should get rid of the EOL versions soon + provide updated images for 2.6.0

It is a little strange to take over the image maintenance to plan to deprecate it, but it is understandable.

To be honest, there are ongoing discussions inside the ASF how to deal with the branding for other distribution sources like Dockerhub and if there should be policies to force projects to do apache/xy. But this is still a very early thing, so I think, that it is (for now) fine to use the official distribution way (via storm). It is also a good way to maintain backward compat for now.

[rzo1]

I guess this also means https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1836 can finally close? 😄 ❤️

Yes ;-)

[rzo1]

Shall we add 2.6.0 in a separate PR or should we add it to this PR too (so people get the latest version)? @jnioche will prepare a PR for the docs update to point to the correct repo, etc.

[jnioche]

Shall we add 2.6.0 in a separate PR or should we add it to this PR too (so people get the latest version)? @jnioche will prepare a PR for the docs update to point to the correct repo, etc.

Done! See docker-library/docs#2409

[tianon]

Let's get this in and do a follow-up with the latest version 👍 ❤️

(Feel free to pass on Britney's email to any of the other folks in the ASF having discussions about this -- she'd be really happy to discuss it, especially in the context of DVP vs DOI, moving between them, and branding around all that, including whether/how Docker Hub could make changes to improve that for DOI, for example 🙇)