-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 179
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Simplify and consolidate image building in neighbors. #9434
Comments
Ko is used to not use Dockerfiles in go apps, greatly simplifying maintenance of go-based images and keeping central standard in build environment for each application. When you build go application you don't have to care about writing a Dockerfile, maintaining it, bumping or writing yet another configuration in dependabot, when the tool can provide everything based on centralized source with separate processes.
Image-builder is used only for legacy stuff, that is hard to move, like Keeping this structure is logical and beneficial for development work, speeding up maintenance across multiple applications that you have to maintain. |
I just wonder if it is worth to migrate test/base images as we will not maintain them in the long-term. But it depends on the effort of migration. |
I don't actually see the pros with using redundant dockerfiles. ko simplify a lot building process, consistency and dependency management. |
@akiioto we never had redundant dockerfiles. We always had one and only one dockerfile for each image. Same as you have one line in ko.yaml and koapps.yaml files for each image. I don't see a reason we should have redundant dockerfiles. Why you think we need redundant dockerfiles? Could you please share more details how ko improves dependency management? With simplify a build process that is true if you have only golang images which doesn't require any custom base images. If that is not true then you have to use ko as an additional building tool, which is not a simplification. About consistency I agree, but it again limited to golang apps images only. Anything else will not benefit from that. |
This issue has been automatically marked as stale due to the lack of recent activity. It will soon be closed if no further activity occurs. |
This issue has been automatically closed due to the lack of recent activity. |
Still relevant and necessary to deprecate prow. |
Description
With current setup for our team we have multiple tools to build oci images and multiple locations to store information which images to build and how to do it?
Tools to build.
Locations in kyma-project/test-infra we store information about images to build.
All neighbors images should be build with the same tool.
Preferred tool should be SLC-29 certified image building solution.
All neighbors images definitions should be stored in location according to one team policy. The policy should define clear guideline where and how to store image definition. This should be a one central location for all images or each image should be stored along with application code it runs or is used by.
Reasons
Our build image setup uses multiple different technologies and doesn't follow any clear rules where to store images definitions.
This brings unnecessary complexity, increase maintenance workload and learning curve.
Acceptance Criteria
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: