Actually, I think filtering in the version is a good idea. I should have
thought of that one on my own :P. Thanks for the suggestion, Vladimir!
Looks like the Dockerhub stuff is still WIP (at least, that issue is
still open).
I'm not sure what combination of plugins would be best to do this
(maven-resources-plugin might be enough). I might have some time over
the holiday weekend to look at this.
On 11/21/18 6:29 AM, Francis Chuang wrote:
I think using dockerhub's hooks is definitely, an option. Josh, what do
you think? Then we can get rid of the stuff in the pom.xml to validate
the version number in the dockerfiles.
The downside is that anyone building the images on their own machine
would have to pass in the AVATICA_VERSION environment variable manually,
but these files are under the dockerhub folder, so it should be clear
that they are used to publish images to dockerhub.
There are other Dockerfiles under the dockerfolder for building a
snapshot docker image on your own system and those can still be used
without having to pass in the AVATICA_VERSION environment variable.
On 21/11/2018 10:02 pm, Vladimir Sitnikov wrote:
Francis>We do need the dockerfiles with the correct version numbers
Francis>committed to git, because once we tag a release, docker hub will
build
Francis>the docker images from those dockerfiles and publish them to
docker
hub
I see, then replacement the source file + commit might be a way to go
here
indeed.
By the way, have you considered DockerHub's hooks/variables to perform
the
replacement on build?
For instance:
https://github.com/docker/hub-feedback/issues/508#issuecomment-243968310
What do you think?
Vladimir
