On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:02 PM, kmbulebu <kmbul...@gmail.com> wrote: > I believe the real horse race is between the > underlying docker libraries. In the end, we'll likely have a clear winner, > and can standardize a group of plugins around that. Perhaps docker-commons > becomes that focal point, and we have smaller plugins that deliver slaves, > build steps, workflow DSL, etc.
Seems reasonable to me to have smaller plugins with focused features, and a little competition. I would not object to hosting as is, provided that plugin wikis clearly link to alternatives. IIUC the main differences between your plugin and the `Cloud` portion of the `docker` plugin are · Different client libraries. No clear winner yet. · Slave launcher: yours uses JNLP; `docker` plugin currently ships SSH, has JNLP support in code but disabled. If you can later reach consensus with the `docker` plugin devs on the approach to take for a general-purpose Docker cloud provider, it should be possible to unify code into a new plugin release. Automatic migration of user settings will be a bit trickier but is possible. By the way your comparison chart neglected to mention https://github.com/ndeloof/docker-slaves-plugin which is a novel approach that I think is very promising. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jenkinsci-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CANfRfr1hTuSsTQ8RWL%3DdqSZLDH_JRZ6jPpMBQ51o2Hrv%2BKCNUA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
