> 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
>
>
|