-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 71
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
RFC: Any-stack Buildpacks #97
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Stephen Levine <stephen.levine@gmail.com>
d66fc58
to
31bfc43
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think I'm pretty ambivalent about this (it doesn't hurt to be conservative about claimed compatibility), but given that a lot of both Java and NodeJS buildpack integrations are covered by this, it seems like it might be useful.
text/0000-any-stack-buildpacks.md
Outdated
# Alternatives | ||
[alternatives]: #alternatives | ||
|
||
- We could add a special field that indicates any-stack compatibility, so that buildpack authors need to explicitly opt-in to the new behavior. This would prevent buildpack authors who don't know about stacks from inadvertently declaring any-stack compatibility without adequate testing. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This seems like a good compromise. WRT platforms, maybe we just claim a set of stack ids for all, linux, windows? I'm not married to any of those names.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Jumping on this bandwagon - if it could harm the UX, I'd rather it be gated/you have to opt in, so that buildpack authors don't ruin users trust in the platform.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done
This is a good addition since I do think many buildpacks can be built to be more generic. I share Ben's concerns of it being the default and would like to see us explore the opt-in options. |
Signed-off-by: Stephen Levine <stephen.levine@gmail.com>
Switched to opt-in, ready for review. |
Final Comment Period with merge disposition, closing on 19 August, 2020. |
Signed-off-by: Stephen Levine <stephen.levine@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Ben Hale <bhale@vmware.com>
Signed-off-by: Stephen Levine <stephen.levine@gmail.com>
Readable