Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Question] Should we remove the Dockerfile #40

Closed
LucasRoesler opened this issue Jan 26, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #41
Closed

[Question] Should we remove the Dockerfile #40

LucasRoesler opened this issue Jan 26, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #41

Comments

@LucasRoesler
Copy link
Member

I was about to open a PR for the Go modules migration when I realized that this Dockerfile may need to be updated https://github.com/openfaas/faas-provider/blob/master/Dockerfile

But then I realized I wasn't sure what it was for. It is not referenced in the CI flow or the Readme. It looks like it was an early demo prototype for how the faas-provider works. The Readme now references the concrete implementation in faas-netes, perhaps we can remove this Dockerfile?

@LucasRoesler LucasRoesler changed the title [Question] [Question] Should we remove the Dockerfile Jan 26, 2020
@alexellis
Copy link
Member

I added this and was using it as a sample to show how to build a simple provider. I don't mind if you would like to delete it.

alexellis added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 5, 2020
* Switch to Go modules
* Remove dep
* `go build` worke
* `go test ./...` worked too
* Remove Dockerfile, Closes: #40
* Update Travis to use Go 1.13

Signed-off-by: Alex Ellis (OpenFaaS Ltd) <alexellis2@gmail.com>
alexellis added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 5, 2020
* Switch to Go modules
* Remove dep
* `go build` worke
* `go test ./...` worked too
* Remove Dockerfile, Closes: #40
* Update Travis to use Go 1.13

Signed-off-by: Alex Ellis (OpenFaaS Ltd) <alexellis2@gmail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants