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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
Propose the merge of static, tiny and base stacks and builders #313
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Propose the merge of static, tiny and base stacks and builders #313
Changes from 6 commits
ff8bafd
5f690a1
8137bff
d32990e
b838461
18ec1fa
7f9a46c
e2eacae
237f192
4fa079b
e42a3a9
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.
I agree with that, it's confusing to choose which builder to use. But I think it would be better if the image starts by default being optimized and in case the user needs more packages into the run image (a bigger run stack image) then he/she could choose a different run image.
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 think this is a trade-off to consider (as usual) and I would be inclined to prioritize "works out of the box" over "provides minimal dependencies".
Extensions could be a way to remove the need to choose one over the other. However, they introduce other trade-offs. For one, with the recent news on Kaniko (see here and here) I'd say the future of at least the implementation of Extensions is unclear. Independent of that, I think an implementation for choosing the best run image based on language choice using Extensions can quickly become unwieldy - as far as I remember this would require Extension(s) and special Buildpack(s) to work in collaboration with each other via the Build Plan.
It is likely possible, but I am not sure it is worth the effort.
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.
+1 - I think it needs to just work out of the box. If it's not the smallest possible image, that's OK. We can then provide other runtime images that allow you to make smaller app images.
I think a nice side effect of this approach is that it socializes and makes commonplace the usage of a runtime image not provided by the builder. This could even allow a user to take our runtime image and add or remove stuff in their own custom runtime image. You could do this before, but it's making it more accessible / "normal" if we're suggesting folks do it.