Skip to content

Conversation

@vdemeester
Copy link
Member

@vdemeester vdemeester commented Dec 2, 2016

This reverts commit 3e1b539, in order to fix #29005 but reverting #24725.

The basic idea is the following :

  • Reverting that altogether on 1.13 to not break people
  • For 1.14, add it back but as a warning first and with a deprecation notice.
  • When it's time, no more warning

/ping @yongtang can you work on that for 1.14 ? (this might close #29006 too)

/cc @tiborvass @thaJeztah @cpuguy83 @vieux @duglin @tianon @yosifkit

🐸

Signed-off-by: Vincent Demeester [email protected]

@runcom
Copy link
Member

runcom commented Dec 2, 2016

Sgtm

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Don't think this one must be removed

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Don't think this one must be removed

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Same

Actually, looks like only the first one has to be removed; 3e1b539

This reverts commit 3e1b539.

Signed-off-by: Vincent Demeester <[email protected]>
@vdemeester vdemeester force-pushed the 29005-revert-builder-comments-line branch from edce691 to 6e0666e Compare December 2, 2016 13:16
@duglin
Copy link
Contributor

duglin commented Dec 2, 2016

Should we start the deprecation process in this release?

@thaJeztah
Copy link
Member

@duglin I think that was option C, and not everyone was sure about that. Could be done in a follow-up for discussion I guess

@vdemeester
Copy link
Member Author

@duglin We're getting pretty close to the release. I would tend to prefer start the depreciation process in the next release to not overdo this release, but as @thaJeztah says, could be done in a follow-up.

Copy link
Member

@thaJeztah thaJeztah left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@thaJeztah
Copy link
Member

oh, we should revert the changelog as well, and reopen #24693 after this was merged

@yongtang
Copy link
Member

yongtang commented Dec 2, 2016

Thanks @vdemeester for the PR. I will work on the follow up PR for deprecation/warning based on the discussion in #29005.

@thaJeztah
Copy link
Member

Thanks @yongtang, sorry for having this PR in parallel to yours, we wanted to have it ready for the next RC ❤️

@tiborvass
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Parser in docker 1.13 breaks backwards compatibility for comments in middle of RUN statement

8 participants