Closed BenjaminKeller closed 7 years ago
@nils-wisiol Travis will be used as soon as this PR and #29 are both merged into master. Or do you want both PR merged before they are submitted into master?
@nils-wisiol I cleaned the commits as instructed and moved the syslogd configuration to an additional file. The syslogd config can now be run by using:
docker-compose -f docker-compose.yml -f docker-compose.syslogd.yml up --build
@Armagetron I may be overlooking something, but wouldn't it be worth running this PR through the existing travis configuration? This PR modifies the www configuration, that's why the tests could be useful.
Other than that, this lgtm
@nils-wisiol Should we merge the travis config into this branch?
My bad - I somehow thought there was already a configuration in master
that was just not active. Let's add the CI later then.
Disclaimer: This is a duplicate of #2. As the old pull request was merging into develop and was missing one bugfix, I opened a new one. It has to be approved by the responsibles, too.
Description
This branch contains fixes for running the example on Windows. See #1 for more information. All members which are forced to use Windows should review this.
Naming of compose files
This is the only comment from #2. Therefore I copied it. At now there exist two docker compose files
docker-compose.yml
anddocker-compose.logging.yml
. Looking at the file names the intention is not clear. I think we have to improve on that.1. Solution: Renaming
docker-compose.yml
->docker-compose.syslogd.yml
docker-compose.logging
->docker-compose.default.yml
2. Solution: Switch to default logging
Is there any reason we want to log with syslogd? I am not a docker specialist.
3. Solution: Remain
If there is a good reason for logging with syslogd we should appreciate that and get to used by it.
Result
I think the first solution is the best as it forces you to choose one and rename it.