Plone: Add info about Plone 6 Docker images

[avoinea]

No description provided.

[tianon]

I have to admit I'm a little confused -- does this mean the https://hub.docker.com/_/plone image is effectively deprecated and won't be getting 6.x+? 😅

(If so, we should make this change a little differently, especially with a deprecated.md so the note shows up at the top of the image description.)

[stevepiercy]

Bah, I cannot request changes, only make a comment.

Anyway, versions are not features, so I created a new section, which should handle the concerns expressed.

I also added suggestions to update links to the old documentation for previous versions.

[stevepiercy]

Apparently my suggestion to add a section did not get saved in my review. I'll try again, now that I have permission.

[avoinea]

I have to admit I'm a little confused -- does this mean the https://hub.docker.com/_/plone image is effectively deprecated and won't be getting 6.x+? 😅

@tianon As Plone 6 is not a monolith app anymore and it comes with a decoupled React front-end we don't have a consensus in the Plone Community on what we should do with this image, yet 🙈

I can see there are other apps that tries to put everything in a all-in-one-docker-image like https://github.com/nextcloud/all-in-one?tab=readme-ov-file#nextcloud-all-in-one but I'm not sure what is the best way to handle this situation for the Official Docker Images. Maybe you can point out to some good examples / practices.

(If so, we should make this change a little differently, especially with a deprecated.md so the note shows up at the top of the image description.)

Meanwhile, until we have a decision, I added the deprecated.md file pointing to the officially supported Plone 6 images.

[mauritsvanrees]

As Plone Release Manager this change looks fine to me.

I don't have experience with how Docker Hub handles these files though, and what the recommendations are.

Quick background:

• For Plone 5 this image is probably fine, but Plone 5 only gets security support until October this year.
• For Plone 6 indeed plone/plone-backend and plone/plone-frontend should be used and have been available since at least 2022.
• I don't know if those two could somehow be promoted to official Docker images, or if it would be better to somehow combine them in one (which seems a bit tricky as two processes should run).

[stevepiercy]

FYI, I'll be back from vacation tonight, and I'll look into how these docs are auto-generated from their counterparts in the Plone GitHub repos, and work on PRs there. From my quick glance of Docker's docs, it looks like the PRs will go under Plone first, then will get generated in Docker repos.

[tianon]

Ah, interesting! I would definitely not recommend doing something like an all-in-one, because I have yet to see a truly reliable (and still minimal) "process supervisor" to help manage multiple processes in one container. Two images is perfectly reasonable, especially if the documentation describes how to run them (something like plone:6-frontend + plone:6-backend is what I'd personally suggest, but plone:frontend-6 and plone:backend-6 would be pretty reasonable too, however the latter to me personally suggests that the versioning between frontend and backend might not stay in sync over time, where the former makes it clear that each are individual components from the "6" release).

[stevepiercy]

LGTM. Please merge!

[stevepiercy]

Closes plone/plone.docker#179.

[stevepiercy]

I don't have merge permission. Who does?

After this PR is merged, then I can start work on promoting plone-backend and plone-frontend as official Docker images. I'll merge the docs files from this PR with those from the other repos, then open a pull request for each image.

When Plone 5.x exits security support, then I think we should remove just plone from the official images. See https://hub.docker.com/search?q=plone&image_filter=official.

[stevepiercy]

Ready for another run of workflows.

[stevepiercy]

I missed a couple of details, and I think I finally got them all this time. Ready for one more run.

I didn't realize I could run the CI check locally with ./update.sh plone followed by ./markdownfmt.sh -d plone. Sorry for the noise.

[whalelines]

Just to make sure we all have the same understanding, the intention is to deprecate the plone DOI entirely and only move forward with plone/plone-backend and plone/plone-frontend, i.e., to not provide two variants in the plone DOI, plone:6-frontend and plone:6-backend, as @tianon suggested?

[stevepiercy]

@whalelines, I don't understand what you mean by two variants. @tianon said:

Two images is perfectly reasonable

---

Are the docs in this PR technically approved? I've been waiting for that piece before I start. If approved, then I can start today on the frontend and backend images' docs in separate PRs. Please let me know. Thank you!

[whalelines]

There are currently three repositories serving Plone container images.

1. plone: the Docker Official Image repository for Plone that has images for versions 4 and 5
2. plone/plone-backend: the Docker-Sponsored Open Source repository for the backend image for Plone 6
3. plone/plone-frontend: the Docker-Sponsored Open Source repository for the front image for Plone 6

Currently, this PR for updating the documentation for the plone DOI effectively deprecates the entire plone DOI repository, suggesting people get the latest Plone container images from the two Plone DSOS repositories.

What @tianon suggested was that the plone DOI repository can provide both the backend and frontend images for Plone 6. In contrast to how the Plone DSOS repositories are set up, the frontend and backend variants could both be available in the single plone DOI repository by using separate tags for each variant, e.g., plone:6-backend and plone:6-frontend. Lots of DOI repositories provide multiple image variants, e.g., leveraging different base images, language runtimes, or use cases.

I just want to make sure your intention is to deprecate the plone DOI entirely as this PR suggests.

[stevepiercy]

@whalelines thanks for the explanation and taking care. Can you point me to docs about how to do this, and an example project in the DOI repo? I'm not sure exactly what to search for.

@mauritsvanrees @avoinea I'm available to chat in Discord to discuss how to move forward, and come up with a plan. This turned into something bigger than mere changes to docs that I expected.

[whalelines]

Currently the plone bashbrew file has a single stanza. You would just add a distinct stanza for each variant, e.g., aerospike, arangodb, backdrop, etc.

[tianon]

This seems OK now, although perhaps you'd like to hold off on the deprecation notice now that you're planning to add plone:6 images to DOI? (docker-library/official-images#17281 (comment))

[stevepiercy]

@avoinea please have a look.

[tianon]

Should this be present tense, or past tense? (I don't think they're being actively maintained right now, are they?)

We should also add a DEPRECATED; prefix to README-short.txt (as seen in #2583).

[tianon]

To add a little more detail for #2583, my goal there was to make it really clear (immediately) to users on the page that any images they find here are old, outdated, and unsupported, and they should look elsewhere ASAP - I think this description gets there, but it's not quite as immediately obvious.

I don't have a strong preference either way, as long as we make it clear that this repository is officially deprecated and unsupported (and I think the tense here is the only blocking issue I have with that).

[stevepiercy]

@tianon I lack permission to make a comment on your PR #2583, so here it is:

plone/deprecated.md is not listed as one of those in docker-library/docs. Is it used or ignored? See https://github.com/docker-library/docs?tab=readme-ov-file#files-related-to-an-images-docs.

I'm revising this PR to incorporate your suggestions, once we verify that question.

[stevepiercy]

I made a few revisions. Hopefully this file gets included in the repo.

[stevepiercy]

I verified that this file gets prepended to the top of the automatically generated README.md. You can test by running ./update.sh plone from the root of the repo.

@tianon @avoinea @fredvd would you please take another look? Thank you!

[avoinea]

LGTM.

[stevepiercy]

After this PR is merged, we can proceed with the checklist at plone/plone.docker#179 (comment).

[tianon]

I don't love how many load-bearing content updates there are here (as you'll see below, my remaining actual review comments are all in content.md), but it's mostly fine and I'm happy to see this close to getting over the line.

[tianon]

Once this description ends up on Docker Hub (which is ultimately what all these files are for), this cross-file link won't work. I would suggest just wording this something like "See the deprecation notice above" or similar.

[tianon]

This wording is really tripping me up -- as I understand it, neither of these versions are "supported" either upstream or here, which is the whole point of adding the deprecation notice. Also, why is this duplicating the content from the deprecation notice which will appear on Docker Hub just above it?

[tianon]

If you're dropping the $ prefix on the command lines, this is no longer console but rather shell or bash:

Suggested change

	```console
	```bash

[tianon]

I don't love that it's not completely clear that this repository (https://hub.docker.com/_/plone) is completely deprecated, but I can live with this wording.