Defining a buildConfig by mfojtik · Pull Request #444 · openshift/openshift-docs

mfojtik · 2015-06-04T09:42:59Z

No description provided.

mfojtik · 2015-06-04T10:57:03Z

@bparees @soltysh still tweaking this out and trying to match deploymentConfig... but any early feedback appreciated :)

bparees · 2015-06-04T19:45:23Z

dev_guide/builds.adoc

STI should be first :)

and should be spelled out as Source-To-Image.

also those need to be links or something... "overview: there are 3 types of builds" and then saying nothing about them and moving on to buildconfig isn't very helpful. They are defined over here:
http://docs.openshift.org/latest/architecture/core_objects/builds.html#build-strategies

(the fact that we have two places for build information is a bit of a challenge)

and I just realized we have this thing already....
http://docs.openshift.org/latest/architecture/core_objects/builds.html#buildconfig

bparees · 2015-06-04T21:32:28Z

@soltysh after @mfojtik is done, this is probably where you can add discussion of incremental builds (and the other buildconfig parameters). That's why i was confused this morning..... @soltysh has this other build doc related issue: #424

mfojtik · 2015-06-05T13:06:34Z

@bparees comments addressed

mfojtik · 2015-06-05T13:06:54Z

@bparees still I'm not sure if we want to keep http://docs.openshift.org/latest/architecture/core_objects/builds.html#buildconfig

soltysh · 2015-06-05T13:10:24Z

Hmmm, maybe we should move entire contents into the doc you're updating, do the same with routing and leave in Core Objects just the two describing origin and k8s model.

bparees · 2015-06-05T13:44:46Z

@soltysh @mfojtik did you guys not read my email? :)

bparees · 2015-06-05T13:47:24Z

@mfojtik go ahead and get rid of the BuildConfig in the architecture section as part of this PR. You can move the secrets discussion over too.

soltysh · 2015-06-05T13:58:20Z

@bparees yeah, but only after reaching this PR 😉

soltysh · 2015-06-05T21:34:40Z

dev_guide/builds.adoc

Now in our api it's called just source, I'd rename it to match.

mfojtik · 2015-06-08T12:04:39Z

@soltysh @bparees updated, PTAL

rhcarvalho · 2015-06-08T15:53:15Z

Missing ImageChange trigger here: https://github.com/openshift/openshift-docs/pull/444/files#diff-6226fa3a4f1691fffcba49d8c9e13a0cR38

bparees · 2015-06-08T18:28:53Z

good catch @rhcarvalho

soltysh · 2015-06-08T18:38:03Z

dev_guide/builds.adoc

Please update to v1, I'll be taking care of the rest.

@soltysh @bparees this is kubernetes resource, do we have v1 for kubernetes as well?

v1beta3! :) (I don't know, probably not since they haven't cut v1 yet)

bparees · 2015-06-08T20:06:26Z

dev_guide/builds.adoc

you're calling it source build here. so the arch doc lost a change or something.

bfallonf · 2015-06-09T00:50:17Z

@soltysh @mfojtik @bparees A lot of these changes are what I was getting to in my PR #443 (moving the example file and the procedures out of here), so I'll wait for this to merge before I go through it any more.

One thing: a lot of the cases of STI have been changed to S2I (which I think is infinitely better), but is there a reason not all of them have changed? It'd be great to get this consistent across all of the docs, so making them consistent here is a start.

bparees · 2015-06-09T01:41:01Z

@bfallonf apologies for any conflicts we're causing you.

as for the sti/s2i naming... yeah we're probably getting to the point where we can search and replace, we've been trying to dip our toes into it. I think i'm just not 100% certain STI isn't used legitimately in our api anywhere so i'm wary of screwing up our docs with a global search/replace, but I don't think that is the case.

bfallonf · 2015-06-09T03:43:37Z

@bparees I can manage :) I'll wait for this to go through then make my edits to the procedures.

As for sti/s2i, who would I ask about that then? Understandable that it might break something. I'm asking for the sake of docs consistency.

bparees · 2015-06-09T03:48:16Z

@bfallonf myself, @mfojtik or @soltysh are good people to check with.

rhcarvalho · 2015-06-09T07:24:59Z

dev_guide/builds.adoc

In v1 this should be "GitHub" and below "Generic".

rhcarvalho · 2015-06-09T08:16:11Z

This excerpt was not touched by this PR, but since we're improving the docs in general:

https://github.com/openshift/openshift-docs/pull/444/files#diff-6226fa3a4f1691fffcba49d8c9e13a0cR181

"A valid *ref* is a SHA1 hash, a tag or a branch name."

rhcarvalho · 2015-06-09T08:23:57Z

using_images/sti_images/java.adoc

STI → S2I or Source-to-Image?!

i prefer Source-To-Image

mfojtik · 2015-06-09T08:47:37Z

@rhcarvalho I would rather have this merged now and then follow up with @soltysh and you updating the triggers... this PR is holding off another PR's we have here and causing people to do nasty rebases against this.

mfojtik · 2015-06-09T08:48:34Z

@adellape @bparees can we merge this now and follow up with other changes?

soltysh · 2015-06-09T16:07:08Z

I'm ok with merging this as is, since I'm waiting for this PR to merged as well. All the cleaning can be done as a follow-up either by @mfojtik or others interested parties.

bparees · 2015-06-09T17:06:32Z

@mfojtik sounds good.. @adellape can we get this merged and then iterate?

adellape · 2015-06-09T17:30:34Z

Surely.

Defining a buildConfig

Fix missing gemspec

mfojtik force-pushed the defining-buildconfig branch from f5d2d3f to 4b5adea Compare June 4, 2015 09:46

bparees reviewed Jun 4, 2015
View reviewed changes

mfojtik force-pushed the defining-buildconfig branch from 4b5adea to f7ee1b9 Compare June 5, 2015 13:05

mfojtik changed the title ~~[WIP] Defining a buildConfig~~ Defining a buildConfig Jun 5, 2015

soltysh mentioned this pull request Jun 5, 2015

[do not merge] Edits procedures in builds file #443

Closed

soltysh reviewed Jun 5, 2015
View reviewed changes

dev_guide/builds.adoc Outdated

Copy link

soltysh Jun 5, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Now in our api it's called just source, I'd rename it to match.

mfojtik force-pushed the defining-buildconfig branch from f7ee1b9 to 2f03963 Compare June 8, 2015 12:01

soltysh reviewed Jun 8, 2015
View reviewed changes

mfojtik force-pushed the defining-buildconfig branch from 44b2071 to 37de006 Compare June 8, 2015 18:38

bparees reviewed Jun 8, 2015
View reviewed changes

dev_guide/builds.adoc

Copy link

Contributor

bparees Jun 8, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

you're calling it source build here. so the arch doc lost a change or something.

mfojtik force-pushed the defining-buildconfig branch from bf48199 to 6b5784e Compare June 8, 2015 20:17

rhcarvalho reviewed Jun 9, 2015
View reviewed changes

dev_guide/builds.adoc Outdated

Copy link

rhcarvalho Jun 9, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In v1 this should be "GitHub" and below "Generic".

rhcarvalho reviewed Jun 9, 2015
View reviewed changes

Defining a buildConfig

3f98218

mfojtik force-pushed the defining-buildconfig branch from 6b5784e to 3f98218 Compare June 9, 2015 08:48

adellape added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 9, 2015

Merge pull request #444 from mfojtik/defining-buildconfig

a0f6de3

Defining a buildConfig

adellape merged commit a0f6de3 into openshift:master Jun 9, 2015

mfojtik deleted the defining-buildconfig branch August 25, 2015 09:39

sbeskin-redhat pushed a commit to sbeskin-redhat/openshift-docs that referenced this pull request Oct 24, 2022

Merge pull request openshift#444 from apinnick/fix-jekyll-dependencies

a2f5b98

Fix missing gemspec

Conversation

mfojtik commented Jun 4, 2015

Uh oh!

mfojtik commented Jun 4, 2015

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bparees commented Jun 4, 2015

Uh oh!

mfojtik commented Jun 5, 2015

Uh oh!

mfojtik commented Jun 5, 2015

Uh oh!

soltysh commented Jun 5, 2015

Uh oh!

bparees commented Jun 5, 2015

Uh oh!

bparees commented Jun 5, 2015

Uh oh!

soltysh commented Jun 5, 2015

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mfojtik commented Jun 8, 2015

Uh oh!

rhcarvalho commented Jun 8, 2015

Uh oh!

bparees commented Jun 8, 2015

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bfallonf commented Jun 9, 2015

Uh oh!

bparees commented Jun 9, 2015

Uh oh!

bfallonf commented Jun 9, 2015

Uh oh!

bparees commented Jun 9, 2015

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rhcarvalho commented Jun 9, 2015

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mfojtik commented Jun 9, 2015

Uh oh!

mfojtik commented Jun 9, 2015

Uh oh!

soltysh commented Jun 9, 2015

Uh oh!

bparees commented Jun 9, 2015

Uh oh!

adellape commented Jun 9, 2015

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants