Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Orchestrated+Fat Galaxy #515

Open
ThomasWollmann opened this issue Jul 5, 2019 · 2 comments
Open

Orchestrated+Fat Galaxy #515

ThomasWollmann opened this issue Jul 5, 2019 · 2 comments

Comments

@ThomasWollmann
Copy link

Wouldn't it make more sense to have separate repositories for these two deployment strategies? Maybe we can add crosslinks to the repos for Fat/Compose/Kubernetes/... so people can easily decide at which scale they want to deploy Galaxy with Docker.
@pcm32
Copy link
Contributor

pcm32 commented Jul 5, 2019

I don't think that we actually need separate compose and kubernetes images, all orchestrator systems should be able to operate with the same set of very granular images. So I would go for "Fat" and "orchestrated". But yes, having separated repos facilitates release life-cycles in my view.

@ThomasWollmann ThomasWollmann changed the title Compose+Fat Galaxy Orchestrated+Fat Galaxy Jul 5, 2019
@ThomasWollmann
Copy link
Author

I agree with the naming.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@pcm32 @ThomasWollmann