Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Add spec changes for image extensions #298
Add spec changes for image extensions #298
Changes from 22 commits
0bbd693
ded555e
32b57c2
35f8066
319ec34
4120892
bfdec08
27b75f4
8511bc8
1523a68
3683f47
9811f0f
8cb34ff
6ad7e76
9cf87e0
84bcc82
126bef3
4701ff0
b677794
3dc326d
2afbe69
e26384a
745b4fc
bf837f6
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can we stop using the term "buildpack implementation"? Or at least swap the word order to "implementation buildpack" if we can't think of a better term for a non-meta-buildpack? Meta-buildpacks are still implementations of buildpacks, so I think it's difficult to understand these sections.
This could be a separate PR, but I feel like adding image extensions makes this even more confusing.
Some name ideas:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I like concrete buildpacks.. has a nice construction theme to it ;p
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please see #300 - I went with "executable buildpack" because that seemed most natural according to the definition I used.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Curious why image extensions MUST be optional?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@sclevine could you elaborate?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This sentence (while "accurate", I think) doesn't make much sense... I am not sure how to improve it without re-working the entire section.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"During detection, order definitions MUST be resolved into individual buildpack implementations. If present, Image Extensions MAY provide an order definition. Buildpacks MUST provide an order definition."
Not sure if that covers the intent.. which itself kinda hints the original still has wiggle room.. (It's possible in my rephrasing to interpret that each extension would supply an order definition, or that there would be one for all extensions).
The original leaves bare the possibilty that an order defintiion for extensions is required, although the extensions themselves remain optional (as the binding of the 'if present' can be made to 'image extensions' rather than 'order definition').
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To make this more clear, I think we should define the following six terms early in the spec:
The names are just suggestions.
Maybe it's easier to say that image extensions are buildpacks?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@sclevine what is a build module? What is the difference between an order build module and an atomic build module?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let's hash this out in https://github.com/buildpacks/spec/pull/300/files - we can rebase this PR when that one is merged.