search

blue-build / github-action

Reusable GitHub Action to build custom images
Apache License 2.0
14 stars 4 forks source link

refactor: choosing the default compromise #34

Closed xynydev closed 7 months ago

xynydev commented 7 months ago

Squashing builds, or caching builds?

@gmpinder

gmpinder commented 7 months ago

I'm personally of the opinion that we should prefer caching builds. There are some things we still need to handle like https://github.com/blue-build/cli/issues/156 and https://github.com/blue-build/cli/issues/138 to truly allow the choice. The latter should give us much better caching abilities. I also have a suspicion that this would help reduce update sizes (still needs to be tested out) by only making new layers as they are actually needed.

xynydev commented 7 months ago

If we can keep the image size good, yeah, probably faster builds is the goal. One thing to consider, is that most users' GitHub build time is free and expendable, while their bandwidth might not be.

gmpinder commented 7 months ago

If we can keep the image size good, yeah, probably faster builds is the goal. One thing to consider, is that most users' GitHub build time is free and expendable, while their bandwidth might not be.

I totally get that, but if their base image gets an update, they'll have to download all those layers as well as the layer(s) created by bluebuild anyways regardless of if it's squashed. With the cache option though, rapid development to make tweaks will save bandwidth immensely especially with my findings in https://github.com/blue-build/cli/pull/157.