Agree... the ow-utils should have wskdeploy as long as it can be independently
From: "David P Grove" <gro...@us.ibm.com> To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org Date: 07/09/2019 12:59 PM Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: Re: rationale for wskdeploy Docker image "Matt Rutkowski" <mrutk...@us.ibm.com> wrote on 07/09/2019 01:32:22 PM: > .... > FWIW, I think server-side wskdeploy > usage is a great feature with lots of potential and then having the > convenience binary avail (that matches the wskdeploy client version) may > have value. > Thanks Matt, the use case makes sense. It seems like going forward the use case could be covered by the ow-utils image in the name of image consolidation? We put the wsk cli into ow-utils and wskdeploy functionality is now available via the `wsk project` subcommands. Is that enough? --dave
