testing != 7.0

[DrewDevereux]

The README.md states that readthedocs/build:testing == readthedocs/build:7.0, but this is not the case. :7.0 contains python 3.9, but :testing does not:

me@mine:~$ docker run -ti readthedocs/build:testing bash
docs@38ccaab061da:/$ python3.8 --version
Python 3.8.6
docs@38ccaab061da:/$ python3.9 --version
bash: python3.9: command not found
docs@38ccaab061da:/$

[humitos]

Hi @DrewDevereux! These images are for internal Read the Docs usage and for development. They are tagged in our servers and locally but maybe wrong in Docker Hub.

Besides we are changing our structure and none of these images are going to be used anymore.

What do you want to use these images for?

[astrojuanlu]

I thought we had addressed the inaccuracies of the README in #172, however I am now confused as well.

For the record, I confirm that testing doesn't have Python 3.9, but 7.0 does.

[DrewDevereux]

Hi @humitos, Two reasons:

1. We build our docs in our CI pipeline, in order to be confident that they will build correctly on RTD, so it makes sense for our CI pipeline build process to mimic as closely as possible the RTD build process. Therefore our CI pipeline builds our docs in a readthedocs/build container.
2. We embed UML diagrams in our docs using sphinxcontrib-plantuml, which needs PlantUML to be installed. Your docker images are a very convenient way to get that.

[humitos]

We build our docs in our CI pipeline, in order to be confident that they will build correctly on RTD, so it makes sense for our CI pipeline build process to mimic as closely as possible the RTD build process. Therefore our CI pipeline builds our docs in a readthedocs/build container

Why not using "Pull Request builders" instead of mimic Read the Docs? See https://blog.readthedocs.com/pull-request-builder-general-availability/

[DrewDevereux]

That looks sensational. I'll give it a go, thanks.