kinda strange to put the run commands as overrides in fuge-config.js

[rjrodger]

would prefer to put them into the system yml file

[pelger]

Chose not to do this in order to keep the yml file compatible with docker-compose. May be worth revisiting this decision however.

[AdrianRossouw]

but docker-compose.yml files also have an entry point ?

[pelger]

True enough in that a command entry is supported. @AdrianRossouw you want to take a look at this also ?

[rjrodger]

fuge should be bigger than docker :)
but in any case, wouldn't have a get-out-of-jail for meta data?

[mcollina]

I agree with you @rjrodger! I noted this to @pelger when he first demoed me fuge :D.
Given that the compose file is just yml, we can stick a fuge key for each microservice, and we jail there all our custom config.

[AdrianRossouw]

I think we do get some benefit from building on the docker-compose.yml format, because they are far too big now to be able to change it significantly, but we should def. be able to extend it as needed.

Also, I personally don't like having .js and .yml config files mixed.

[rjrodger]

@AdrianRossouw +1 it is a bit jarring

[lucamaraschi]

I like the idea of @mcollina as we could then strip-out the metadata informations of fuge returning a clean docker-compose file if needed.
Another alternative would be to create an overlay yml file which extends using the extends functionality of Docker compose to inject the metadata informations keeping fuge and the pure compose file separated but still outputting a valid docker-compose.yml file...I think more mechanical but with a clear separation of concerns.

[pelger]

Closing this issue as configuration has been rewritten!