[almighty] Monorepo

[Konrad Kleine]

Thomas,

I agree, that an extension can potential break our system. But if it does,
then we have designed a bad system. :)

Detecting a change in a docker image is no trivial and is not what we want
in the end.

- Konrad



On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Thomas Mäder <tmader at redhat.com> wrote:

> Sabotaging my own argument....
>
> On 09/22/2016 01:15 PM, Konrad Kleine wrote:
>
>> but I from an operations point of view it would be nice to know that the
>> docker image for core with revision X works fine.
>>
> That is true now, but as soon as we have an extension that we don't build
> ourselves (in an open system, that could happen), that breaks down anyway.
>
> With a monorepo (and I think this is what KB mentioned on Bluejeans) we
>> would need to rebuild the docker image for core every time someone makes a
>> ui change. This leads to a docker image for core with revision X+1. Hence,
>> we would need to roll out a new image even if nothing has changed.
>>
> Not necessarily. If nothing has changed in core, we can detect that and
> not trigger a rebuild of the docker image. If we are using the commit hash
> as a build identifier, that is simply an implementation detail.
>
>>
>> I find that not only a waste of energy but a cause for problems. Just
>> consider the amount of time we spend for useless roll outs of the exact
>> same binary only built at different times!
>>
> I don't spend any time on this, roll outs are fully automated ;-)
>
> /Thomas
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/almighty-public/attachments/20160922/f3275484/attachment.htm>