You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently, only the first stage of the Docker build is named, ie, as stage0. The second should also be named. Why? Because this allows additional stages to be easily appended to the build, that may be based on completely different images based on those stages build requirements, and then you go back to native packagers stage and copy artifacts from the additional stages. Otherwise, you need to somehow inject those stages somewhere in the middle of the build which is not at all easy to do. I would suggest that this final stage be given a well known name that never changes, eg main.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Here's an example config, here I create another stage based on alpine/git so that I can clone some content from a github repo, and then I copy it into my image:
Currently, only the first stage of the Docker build is named, ie, as
stage0
. The second should also be named. Why? Because this allows additional stages to be easily appended to the build, that may be based on completely different images based on those stages build requirements, and then you go back to native packagers stage and copy artifacts from the additional stages. Otherwise, you need to somehow inject those stages somewhere in the middle of the build which is not at all easy to do. I would suggest that this final stage be given a well known name that never changes, egmain
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: