Closed SPlanzer closed 4 years ago
Was this PR meant to be based on 2to3 branch ? Because it contains SO MANY changes...
I rebased this PR to the 2to3 branch, so it is clear what you actually want a review of, @SPlanzer. That said, that branch is blowing up, we should try to merge what's completed to avoid maintaining such big change branches....
Specifically to this change request, I see 2 changes being made:
I've to say I dislike both of them. Could you please file tickets to let me know what's the actual problem you were trying to solve ? If I'm not wrong github-action is supposed to be building those docker images on every push to the PR-attached branch...
Was this PR meant to be based on 2to3 branch ? Because it contains SO MANY changes...
it is suppose to be based on 2to3 branch. I am attempting to resolve issues I am having with docker-compose and evaluating the ported plugin against it
I rebased this PR to the 2to3 branch, so it is clear what you actually want a review of, @SPlanzer. That said, that branch is blowing up, we should try to merge what's completed to avoid maintaining such big change branches....
I agree
Specifically to this change request, I see 2 changes being made:
1. Addressing a QGIS branch rather than QGIS tag (makes builds less predictable) 2. Adding a sleep() somewhere (makes build less predictable)
I've to say I dislike both of them. Could you please file tickets to let me know what's the actual problem you were trying to solve ? If I'm not wrong github-action is supposed to be building those docker images on every push to the PR-attached branch...
this is related to issues #92 and #93. These are related to issues I am having with docker-compose locally.
agreed. This is a poor fix
fixes issue arising with docker-compose and install_web.sh. see #93