[RFC] A proposed update to the Docker images ci_* tag pattern

[leandron]

This RFC proposes a new format to keep our Docker images used in CI, moving away from our current incremental numbering to a more meaningful format that contains a timestamp and the latest hash from the repository used to generate such images.

cc @areusch@driazati@Mousius@konturn@junrushao1994@masahi@gromero@mehrdadh@tqchen for visibility and reviews

[driazati]

thanks for sending this in, looks good and should go along nicely with the work in apache/tvm#10646

[areusch]

thanks @leandron this looks great!

[Mousius]

This looks like a much better and more consistent format @leandron, could we also move to - or _ everywhere when we roll this out? (not tlcpackstaging/ci_cpu and tlcpack/ci-cpu)

Other than that, I spotted a few typos 😿

[areusch]

@Mousius i support - instead of _ (when running docker/bash.sh, you can then use _ as a sort of rule of thumb to determine if you're referencing a variable-driven revision or a specific one)

[mehrdadh]

LGTM!
Thanks for working on this!

[gromero]

@leandron Just nitpicked what looks like a typo. Please see my comment inline.

Otherwise Rationale and alternatives makes sense to me and overall LGTM!

[leandron]

Just friendly note here, that as I'm not hearing opposition, I'll move into creating a a PR to update the documentation and reflect the changes proposed here where appropriate.

[Mousius]

@leandron, looking at Docker Hub (https://hub.docker.com/_/hello-world) it would appear the convention for image names is to use - there as well (i.e. tlcpack/ci-cpu rather than tlcpack/ci_cpu) can we go for that one?

[leandron]

@leandron, looking at Docker Hub (https://hub.docker.com/_/hello-world) it would appear the convention for image names is to use - there as well (i.e. tlcpack/ci-cpu rather than tlcpack/ci_cpu) can we go for that one?

Sure. I’ll push an updated version with this and @gromero’s suggestion as well.

[areusch]

@leandron should we merge this? I think the change has landed in Jenkinsfile now

[areusch]

cc @Mousius@gromero can you approve?

[gromero]

cc @Mousius@gromero can you approve?

@leandron Hi. Are you still planing to change #66 (comment) ?

[gromero]

@Mousius I don't have any further comments on it. Are you ok with the current state of this RFC? If so, could you please approve the changes so I can merge it? Thanks!

[Mousius]

@leandron, looking at Docker Hub (https://hub.docker.com/_/hello-world) it would appear the convention for image names is to use - there as well (i.e. tlcpack/ci-cpu rather than tlcpack/ci_cpu) can we go for that one?

Sure. I’ll push an updated version with this and @gromero’s suggestion as well.

@gromero the above change is still pending as far as I can see?

[gromero]

@leandron, looking at Docker Hub (https://hub.docker.com/_/hello-world) it would appear the convention for image names is to use - there as well (i.e. tlcpack/ci-cpu rather than tlcpack/ci_cpu) can we go for that one?

Sure. I’ll push an updated version with this and @gromero’s suggestion as well.

@gromero the above change is still pending as far as I can see?

@Mousius hrm right. So we'll need @leandron to make the next move here.