[WIP] Add base image from the build UpstreamImage if set

[maria]

A rough in progress change.

[bparees]

I think we need to be updating the actual user's dockerfile, not doing it this way, because depending on what their dockerfile does, it might be performing operations that are affected by the new version of the upstream image.

And now that we're going to be editing their dockerfile anyway, it would make sense to move this logic (adding the env vars) to the same place. That way we can get back to just doing a single docker build.

@csrwng agree?

[csrwng]

Yup, makes sense to me

[maria]

@bparees you were suggesting something like this?

[bparees]

yes, but also do the ENV var adding logic, that way we don't have to double-build.

[maria]

@bparees done. WDYT?

[bparees]

if you return here you won't add the env variables which needs to always be done even if there's no upstream image.

[maria]

yes... I fixed it.

[bparees]

looks good. unfortunately we're probably going to have to tweak it a bit after accounting for the changes from clayton, but this will give us a great start.

[ncdc]

"an UpstreamImage"

[smarterclayton]

Yes it does look good - don't take my super obsessive focus on the api names and structure as criticism of the work you guys have been doing. Being able to focus on the perception of the api means you guys are doing everything right in getting real code built and working.

On Dec 17, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Ben Parees [email protected] wrote:

looks good. unfortunately we're probably going to have to tweak it a bit after accounting for the changes from clayton, but this will give us a great start.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[bparees]

i've cherry-picked this into #557 where we'll continue to evolve it.

Note that i removed the STI portion of the logic since we will now just create the STI build strategy with the appropriate image value in the image field when we create the build.