(replies inline)

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, nicolas de loof wrote:

> I haven't found any references to supervisord in JEP pull request, neither
> about kubernetes - did I miss something ?
> Anyway I tend to agree with this comment about packaging supervisord with
> jenkins essential within a docker image as a bad practice. I don't think
> this has anything to relate to running this as plain docker or with some
> orchestrator, this just makes the docker image a mutable instance, which
> should be avoided. Without much details on where this discussion comes from
> I can't really tell much about alternatives.

Surya was referring to the second document in this thread which I sent out:

I understand the "bad practice" argument against this approach but I haven't
yet seen a counter-proposal which accomplishes what jenkins/evergreen needs to
accomplish, without using supervisord in the "basic" container case, or a
Kubernetes-like thing in the "advanced" case. I'm personally comfortable with
being less dogmatic about what goes into the container, understanding that
there's a future on the horizon filled with Kubernetes :)

As to the concern about the image mutability, the evergreen-client would only
be effectively changing content in the mapped `/var/jenkins_home` which must by
the very nature of Jenkins be mutable. I'll update JEP-301 to make that more

Thanks for taking a look-see.

- R. Tyler Croy

     Code: <https://github.com/rtyler>
  Chatter: <https://twitter.com/agentdero>
     xmpp: rty...@jabber.org

  % gpg --keyserver keys.gnupg.net --recv-key 1426C7DC3F51E16F

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to jenkinsci-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to