On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:27 PM, R. Tyler Croy <[email protected]> wrote: > I > assume that it "just works" and there's no quality concerns we should have > from > a non-standard placement of data on disk?
Any obvious problems would have been reported long ago. (I remember some fixes involving folder renames or something like that.) By forcing Essentials users to run with this mode, we would quickly flush out remaining corner cases, I would think. > From my understanding of the potential failure scenarios with a plugin or core > upgrade is that unreadable build.xmls won't present a problem Not that I am aware of. > or be mutated by > a new plugin update It is possible for a plugin to mutate the `build.xml` of a completed build, but unusual, and probably even less likely that such an update would occur during Jenkins startup. > mutable state should not be scattered around inside the container's temporary > filesystem, but rather contained in the single mounted volume, e.g.: > > docker run -v /srv/jenkins:/var/jenkins_home jenkins/evergreen So we could have a volume which contains `$JENKINS_HOME` as a subdirectory, which would be the root of a Git repository; plus some other subdirectories for other unversioned data. That makes more sense to me than what was written in JEP-301. -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CANfRfr3RUuod%3D5aqV2F_Hwu%3D1K%3DnVmM9a9VhvySVnccL-_mvpw%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
