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

Update magic Dante paths to the new ones #298

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 2, 2020
Merged

Conversation

jeremyk-91
Copy link
Contributor

Before this PR

Dante referenced some static paths in its dockerfile, that DPR references in its yml file.

After this PR

The paths have changed: vimagick/dockerfiles@410c297#diff-16814e8cd706b29de1ba77f011fd96f1b245ca6641b3af63b0f787af54284f90 and this PR updates the paths used in DPR to have latest pulls work.

Possible downsides?

  • It looks like vimagick is a singular user who pushes to develop directly. Should we be taking a fork and/or a different SOCKS server?
  • Existing users will need to update their images.

@changelog-app
Copy link

changelog-app bot commented Nov 2, 2020

Generate changelog in changelog/@unreleased

Type

  • Feature
  • Improvement
  • Fix
  • Break
  • Deprecation
  • Manual task
  • Migration

Description

Update usage to work with builds of Dante after 410c297862615aff77f27b99ff7151dcf20c8f71, generated on the 30th of October.

Check the box to generate changelog(s)

  • Generate changelog entry

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ services:
image: vimagick/dante:latest
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should change this from latest so this doesn't happen in future.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh, they only have latest :( :( https://hub.docker.com/r/vimagick/dante/tags

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Cool. Should I set this to the commit hash?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, if that works I would do that

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ah, okay. Yeah I wasn't aware how to set it when no real versions exist 😅

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

(To be clear, I wasn't aware if that works - I was just hoping it might)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Trying the commit hash locally didn't seem to work, so we'll just go ahead with this in the short term.

@CRogers
Copy link
Contributor

CRogers commented Nov 2, 2020

👍

@bulldozer-bot bulldozer-bot bot merged commit 6939645 into develop Nov 2, 2020
@bulldozer-bot bulldozer-bot bot deleted the jeremyk-91-patch-1 branch November 2, 2020 16:00
@svc-autorelease
Copy link
Collaborator

Released 1.1.1

@jeremyk-91
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks @CRogers!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants