I'm +1 on the backport, though I think there are a few things we might want to look at before we pull the PR (I commented on the PR). But from a porting perspective, it's clean and straightforward. It makes it significantly easier to build, and therefore contribute.
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:30 PM Dave Neuman <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 on the backport. > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > I’ll echo my comment from Slack: > > This looks like a pretty low risk change, so would not be opposed to back > > porting to 2.0 > > > > —Eric > > > > > On Mar 1, 2017, at 4:02 PM, Dan Kirkwood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi all.. I've submitted a PR > > > (https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/pull/327) for > > > building using docker/docker-compose that eliminates pulling the > > > source code from github and instead builds from your local source > > > tree. > > > > > > There have been questions in the past about the github connection not > > > being in compliance with Apache guidelines (should be able to build > > > from the distributed tar ball). > > > > > > I think this should be pulled in to the 2.0 branch. > > > > > > Any objections? > > > > > > thanks! Dan > > > > >
