"...we should pin all the dependent images etc and make a release available...." +1
I also like the standalone JAR. Should we consider adding to that the API Management features made available through OW GW, or for that we should keep the docker-compose route ? On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 8:53 AM James Thomas <jthomas...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 on the first point. I've seen other issues in the past with the devtools > project based on image versioning stuff. > > Given devtools is more for experimental and first-steps than production > usage - switching to the standalone controller seems like a good idea. > > On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 at 16:15, Rodric Rabbah <rod...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > this issue was opened against devtools and raises an important point: > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-devtools/issues/273 > > > > "On a separate note, will these builds eventually be versioned or will > they > > continue to be tagged in a backwards incompatible way? I am trying to > > create a build process that is deterministic and currently I am unable to > > achieve this." > > > > Given that we're pointing developer to make quick start still as the way > to > > startup and some of the dependence in this build on docker latest (now > > nightly), I think we should pin all the dependent images etc and make a > > release available. > > > > An existential question is whether we should use the standalone > controller > > which is faster to startup and adapt our docs accordingly. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > -r > > > > > -- > Regards, > James Thomas >
