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
Automated build on Docker Hub #564
Comments
I can only support that. Right now, the deploymentprocess isn't that stright forward to automate as it could be |
I'm happy to admit that Docker will never be a priority for pretalx. I'll look into automated builds, but I'll have to mention that our ansible infrastructure is much better maintained than any Dockerfiles. |
It shouldn't be much (or any) additional effort on your part. There is already a working |
Yes, it will be – not much, but it's there, and currently my priorities lie elsewhere.
Nope – the Dockerfile in this project is not recommended for use, as is stated in the beginning of the file. The pretalx/pretalx-docker repository should be used, and it patches the currently existing Dockerfile in plenty of ways. So there is some work to be done besides just clicking a Dockerhub button. Please stay tuned, it will happen at some point. |
@rixx ive started working on an pretalx-container that follows the same scheme I need to rebase it though before its any useful |
I've tried to migrate everything docker-related to our https://github.com/pretalx/pretalx-docker repository, but I think some changes were not quite right. I'm awaiting review by @morisson (who did most of the work on pretalx dockerization). Once that repository is working completely, I can just publish it to Dockerhub. If you'd like to make a go of it, feel free! |
Thanks to @MaxRink we now have docker builds at https://hub.docker.com/r/pretalx/standalone! |
Any chance we could get the docker hub build updated? It looks like it only made one build 4 months ago. |
I triggered an automated build and added a rule that should build on every release tag. Maybe. |
@rixx, I don't think that worked. The new build on the Docker hub is tagged as Additionally, the |
The issue is that pretalx gets referenced as git submodule, and that reference is still pointing towards 0.9.0
All of the three solutions would allow (mosty) automated builds via docker hub |
I think that moving the Dockerfile into a sub directory of the main repo would be the cleanest, but any of these solutions should be good enough. |
No – we came from there, but that suggested to people that the docker solution was supported in any way – which it is not.
I don't really see how that would help.
This is what we are going with. I triggered the update manually for now, and I'm currently in the process of building an automated build and packaging infrastructure for pretalx. Once this is done, a tagged and updated version of the pretalx-docker repo should be pushed automatically on release – or it will trigger an error. |
Problem you are facing
Currently in order to use pretalx, you must build the image yourself. However getting updated requires you to manually check this repository for updates and re-pull and build the docker image periodically.
Possible Solution
I am suggesting that in addition to the pretalx-docker which has some great scripts and documentation, that pretalx be added to the Docker Hub and enable an automated build so that whenever an update is pushed to pretax the container is also updated.
Context
This will greatly assist in on-boarding new installations as well as allow for easier updates for existing Docker user.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: