X Tutup
Skip to content

Support for build-args of docker build#410

Merged
marcuslinke merged 3 commits intodocker-java:masterfrom
alenkacz:buildargs
Jan 10, 2016
Merged

Support for build-args of docker build#410
marcuslinke merged 3 commits intodocker-java:masterfrom
alenkacz:buildargs

Conversation

@alenkacz
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

In 1.9 there is new property - build-args that can be specified for
docker build command

In 1.9 there is new property - build-args that can be specified for
docker build command
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

since what API version?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks like 1.21

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yep. 1.21

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could you add javadoc? Example:

/**
* See {@link #oomKilled}
*/
@CheckForNull

and reference to field
/**
* @since {@link RemoteApiVersion#VERSION_1_17}
*/
@CheckForNull

@alenkacz
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

alenkacz commented Jan 9, 2016

I have added javadoc with api version information

@KostyaSha
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

LGTM, @marcuslinke ?

@marcuslinke
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@alenkacz @KostyaSha I'm OK with it but it needs to be implemented/tested for the netty based BuildImageCmdExec also before this PR can be merged.

@alenkacz
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I have added that netty based implementation. By the way - keeping two implementations like this is not a good architectural decision - I think. It is really error prone...

Also I think that you should detach this forked repository if you are not planning on merging it back to the previous one. Because if it is like this, contributions are not counted for example - because they are counted only after fork is merged to the original repository. Which will never happen.

How to detach fork is written here - https://www.quora.com/Git-revision-control/How-can-one-detach-a-forked-project-in-GitHub I used GitHub support in the past and they are really quick.

@marcuslinke
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@alenkacz Thanks! The netty implementation will supersede the old jersey implementation in the near future so this is a temporary situation only that will stay until after the next release ( > v3.0.0).

I will try to reach Github support to detach the repository as you suggested. Didn't know this is possible.

Will merge this ASAP. Thanks for contributing!

@KostyaSha
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Also I think that you should detach this forked repository if you are not planning on merging it back to the previous one. Because if it is like this, contributions are not counted for example - because they are counted only after fork is merged to the original repository. Which will never happen.

Fork shows history, initial repository is not used anymore and technically i think it in mergeable state.

@marcuslinke marcuslinke self-assigned this Jan 10, 2016
@marcuslinke marcuslinke merged commit 10ad1d5 into docker-java:master Jan 10, 2016
@KostyaSha
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@marcuslinke does this fork changed artifactId? If not then i see no reasons for breaking fork chain.

@marcuslinke
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@KostyaSha The groupId was changed from com.kpelykh to com.github.docker-java. However, beside this I see one main reason to detach: When you create a pull request the default base fork is set to https://github.com/kpelykh/docker-java which annoys me everytime. So do you have any objections against detaching?

@KostyaSha
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Let's try.

@marcuslinke
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Done.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

X Tutup