Re: Buildpacks PMC - 2015-10-12 Notes
Thanks Mike for your response and sorry for delay in following up.
Responses inline. On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Mike Dalessio <mdalessio(a)pivotal.io> wrote: Following are some aspects that were previously discussed and I think deserve some fixes related to buildpack staging life cycle, what about setting up a design proposal as suggested by James Bayer into [0] to detail them with the community ? - buildpack versionning [b1] - offer standard caching mechanism for pulled internet dependencies [b2] - enabling buildpack debugging traces could be standardized across buildpacks and potentially support added to cf cli and dea, e.g. displaying last git commits for a custom git repo when debugging is enabled - heroku compile ENV_DIR compatibility support in diego [b3] - support for automatically restaging vulnerable apps, once corresponding buildpacks vulnerabilities are fixed by a new buildpack [b4] - buildpack governance support: in some organizations, there is a need to scope some buildpacks per org/spaces, and possibly restrict usage of custom buildpacks. - somewhat related, suggesting to improve the droplet download capability to push the resulting droplet as a docket image into a [private] docker repo. This might seem more natural than the current download tar.gz droplet bits followed by a push to the binary buildpack that is suffering from symlinks uploads portability issues [b5] [b0] https://groups.google.com/a/cloudfoundry.org/d/msg/vcap-dev/A84xVoi8MmE/mos1CYvnxvAJ [b1] http://cf-dev.70369.x6.nabble.com/cf-dev-Droplets-and-Stacks-tp946p2422.html [b2] https://groups.google.com/a/cloudfoundry.org/d/msg/vcap-dev/A84xVoi8MmE/AuQt3nF3ImcJ [b3] https://github.com/cloudfoundry-incubator/buildpack_app_lifecycle/issues/12 [b4] https://github.com/cloudfoundry/java-buildpack/issues/231#issuecomment-142200625 [b5] https://www.pivotaltracker.com/n/projects/966314/stories/95890146 Can you please elaborate on your perception of reliability concerns with anNo reason it couldn't support an ordered set of buildpacks. I'm not fully HTTP-based API for staging pipelines ? CloudFoundry currently heavily relies on (internal) HTTP APIs for its internal workings, or external HTTP APIs such as the service broker, or the upcoming route services. What is then the preferred solution for now ? Is the mention of an S3-API-based pipeline with processes handling their transformation, similar to the proof-of-concept vito proposed into [p1] [p1] https://github.com/vito/cfv4 ? If ever you or part of the buildpacks team is making it to the Berlin CfAbsolutely, I will do so soon. Summit, that'd be great to have a community session around this, possibly in the preceding unconference on sunday.
|
|