On Sun, 1 Dec 2019 at 23:11, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 5:32 PM sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, 1 Dec 2019 at 20:37, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 9:00 AM sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > It takes a long time to install all the gems after setting up a new > > > > workspace. > > > > > > > > Would it be possible to install these into the container image, so a > new > > > > workspace can be deployed more easily? > > > > > > > > I don't think there's any particular need for the gems to reside on > the > > > > host rather than the container. > > > > > > It's complicated. > > > > > > Yes, installing gems takes a while. Moving the installation to the > > > build step will make that step take longer. > > > > > > During development, it is not uncommon to want a new gem. Redoing the > > > image (and reinstalling all gems) would take a while. > > > > Surely it would only be necessary to add the new version of the gem at > the > > end? > > i.e. install the later one over the original. > > This will eventually need to be tidied up, but meanwhile deployment > should > > be fairly quick. > > Scenario: I make a change to the code, install a gem, and shutdown for the > day. > > Where are you installing the gem? If you install it in the container filing system, it will disappear anyway. If you install it outside, it will still be there. However of course the gem search path would need to be set up appropriately to pick up gems from the image and outside. Come back the next day, my source code changes are there, but the gem is > gone. > > I don't think that follows. I would find that confusing, but whatever. Feel free to make that > change. I'd find it annoying, but the Docker is not for me. > > > Putting the new > > > gem into the (ephemeral) container may mean that it goes away when the > > > container is stopped. Better options would be to put the gems into a > > > volume or on the host. > > > > > They are currently on the host, but that is not currently shared between > > installations. > > I don't know what you mean by installations. No, the host won't use > the same gems as Docker, but if you update your images and remount > your source, the gems will still be there. > > > One nice thing about either a volume or the host is that you can > > > rebuild your image and you generally won't need to reinstall gems. > > > > > At the moment the gems do get re-installed if one creates a new > workspace. > > I don't know what you mean by workspace. > > I mean a new directory as described in DOCKER.md > I'm gathering that I don't understand your intended usage scenario. > Do you have multiple directories, each with their own copies of svn, > etc? > > Yes. The reason I discovered the Wunderbar issue was that I decided to start afresh as there had been a lot of changes. To be sure that subsequent changes to the Rakefile don't cause issues, it is necessary to start afresh. If this process can be speeded up, so much the better. There's also the potential to share the bundled image with other users. > > > It should also fix the wunderbar bootstrap issue. > > > > > > Apparently that is already fixed? > > > > > Yes. > > Cool. > > > > > S. > > > > > > - Sam Ruby > > - Sam Ruby >
