Tag the image on Docker index about cedarish

[bacongobbler]

That sounds do-able. How do the following tags sound for the respective stacks?

cedar
cedar-14

FYI there seems to be some development ongoing upstream for Docker integration on Heroku's stack images: heroku/base-images@40d01e2

[fgrehm]

Yeah, I think those tags would be nice :)

[bacongobbler]

The underlying issue here is that we're playing catch-up with Heroku. That sometimes means that we're not exactly 1-1 with them. Every time they update the cedar14 stack, we'll be doing the same. Tagging each time we bump the images would certainly be a hassle, and by definition it means we're incompatible with their cedar stack. I understand that it's an issue with trying to make a reproducible environment, but it's also an issue with how Heroku's currently building out their new cedar stack.

In the meantime, a cedar branch would be good because that stack isn't changing any time soon.

@progrium, thoughts on this?

[progrium]

I don't think we should tag each bump. It seems like we had come up with a good idea to have a cedar and cedar14 branch and have Docker Hub keep tags based on each, but not for any minor revisions.

[bacongobbler]

the problem with tagging cedar14 is that it's in active development, which could be troublesome. cedar should be fine, though. Once the new cedar stack is more stable, I agree that we can tag it as cedar14. :)

[progrium]

I guess it's not ok to treat docker tags as branches? I thought it was.

On Wednesday, August 27, 2014, Matthew Fisher [email protected]
wrote:

the problem with tagging cedar14 is that it's in active development,
though, which could be troublesome. cedar should be fine, I think

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#3 (comment).

Jeff Lindsay
http://progrium.com

[bacongobbler]

Yes, you can treat tags as branches. Apologies for the confusion.

I've gone ahead and created cedar and cedar14 branches. The former is pointing at c3ec582 and the latter is pointing to HEAD. Could you please create new automated builds on DockerHub for these branches? Thanks :)

[progrium]

Done!

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Matthew Fisher [email protected]
wrote:

Yes, you can treat tags as branches. Apologies for the confusion.

I've gone ahead and created cedar and cedar14 branches. The former is
pointing at c3ec582
c3ec582
and the latter is pointing to HEAD. Could you please create new automated
builds on DockerHub for these branches? Thanks :)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#3 (comment).

Jeff Lindsay
http://progrium.com

[bacongobbler]

I see a cedar14 tag, but not cedar :( good to close otherwise

[progrium]

Yeah that's weird. Maybe it needs to be pushed to. I can also add you as a
collaborator with your Hub username.

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Matthew Fisher [email protected]
wrote:

I see a cedar14 tag, but not cedar :(

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#3 (comment).

Jeff Lindsay
http://progrium.com

[bacongobbler]

good to close. Turns out that the quantal repository was moved to old-releases.ubuntu.com because it's now unsupported. The builds should be good to go now.

[fgrehm]

Thanks a lot guys!