> On Jan. 15, 2017, 1:55 a.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote: > > support/mesos-tidy.sh, line 43 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/55490/diff/3/?file=1605521#file1605521line43> > > > > Removing the image sure made sense for an always regenerated image, but > > does it also for a relatively static image? I as a developer would prefer > > to not always have to repull the image, but maybe e.g., a CI has different > > constraints. > > > > Let's keep the `docker pull` to ensure a recent enough image, but let's > > remove the `docker rmi`.
Yeah, I thought about this as well... I felt like leaving around `mesos/mesos-tidy` images in whatever jenkins CI machines we happen to land on would be bad practice and/or frowned upon. - Michael ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/55490/#review161660 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Jan. 14, 2017, 12:02 p.m., Michael Park wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/55490/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 14, 2017, 12:02 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos and Benjamin Bannier. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Used the `mesos/mesos-tidy` image from DockerHub. > > > Diffs > ----- > > support/mesos-tidy.sh 98ea3857572942536c4f37579ec3f1cae64aaaf7 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/55490/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Michael Park > >
