[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-909?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14900116#comment-14900116
]
Stian Soiland-Reyes commented on JENA-909:
------------------------------------------
Considering the recent discussion around shrinking the Docker image using a
base image of Alpine Linux, then I now think the Maven-inside-Docker approach
is not the best idea.
This raises the question about where the source for Jena docker files should
live, and to what extent it should be part of Jena's release vote.
I think a small git repository jena-docker (see example
https://github.com/stain/jena-docker ) would work well (and indeed this is how
most Docker repositories work) - and relatively easy to update for anyone in
the project (followed by a pull request
https://github.com/docker-library/official-images/blob/master/library to point
to that jena-docker commit) - but also for third-parties to 'fork' if they need
something different. Hiding the Dockerfile inside the big jena repository is
more of a hindrance.
If we make a separate apache/jena-docker - would that cause us to need a
separate [VOTE] for the Docker release? (which in this approach has links to
the official Jena version and its SHA1, and therefore would be tricky to
include in the normal vote). I would think not, as it is only re-releasing the
already published binary of an already accepted release, verified by checksums.
What are your views?
> Create Docker launcher for Fuseki
> ---------------------------------
>
> Key: JENA-909
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-909
> Project: Apache Jena
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Fuseki
> Reporter: Andy Seaborne
>
> Provide a Docker launcher and setup documentation for Fuseki2.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
