Docker image naming stability

[mebasoglu]

On Autoware, there are multiple Docker image tags for different purposes, and they are being developed rapidly, which is very nice for Autoware deployment.

However, the fast development also causes issues such as instability of the image tags. Since there are changes to the image tag names, it is hard to create an image on top of the official Autoware images. For instance, there used to be a prebuilt tag, but it doesn't exist anymore and users need to migrate to the image which meets their requirements.

Autoware should have a Docker image design and development that allows using in the long term. For example, there is the 20240905-autoware-universe-cuda image. When a new xxxx-autoware-universe-cuda image is created, the functionality should be the same so that users can update their Autoware stack by just changing the date of the base image.

I propose creating long-term periods such as 6–12 months for the image tag naming. While in these periods, the existing tags should be maintained and keep their stated functionality. This will allow users to update their Autoware version by editing the date field in the tag in their Dockerfile.

[armaganarsln]

@xmfcx is this discussion related to this one?

• Use the same tag for multiple cpu architectures in docker images #5174

[xmfcx]

No, this one:

• Prune and document the docker packages #4798 (comment)

Also we can't keep renaming these packages as people rely on these to be stable. Let's discuss what to keep in the open ad kit wg and move forward that way.

Also when these are renamed, the community should also be alerted through github, discord announcements. And a timeline for transition should be provided.

[oguzkaganozt]

As we have discussed during the last WG meeting, universe will be our main monolithic image from now.

And this includes the variants of:

- universe
- universe-cuda
- universe-devel
- universe-devel-cuda

[doganulus]

Autoware should have a Docker image design and development that allows using in the long term.

True. Sadly the development since this April has not followed a careful design but only made ad-hoc changes, which created a lot of confusion until today. I had tried to explain and warn that such a complicated design brings no good here and there.

• https://github.com/orgs/autowarefoundation/discussions/4661#discussioncomment-9220955
• feat(ci,docker): change vcs import to COPY src #4738 (comment)

But the group and reviewers decided this way better and I have parted respectfully. Still, those who are interested in a much simpler design may look here: https://github.com/bounverif/autoware/pkgs/container/autoware

In summary, I think reviewing is broken for Autoware container development. Several merges should have never been passed that easily without any thought.