Nix as OS X Package Manager

Re:Nix as OS X Package Manager by OJFord on Wednesday May 25, 2016 @05:40PM (#11773352)

I sort of agree, but I also think there's no reason to view Docker commits any differently to Git commits.

Are you screwed if you lose a working .git project, or its maintainer? Well, yeah. But we don't actively worry about that happening all that much because we routinely take precautions like distributing it across developer's machines and servers.

Maybe a commit does break, but that's why we didn't just overwrite the previous image.

But also:

    > I only know of a single time when it's valuable to
    > "commit" a new image (recovering logs from a stopped
    > container)

Not everything's open source.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nix as OS X Package Manager by colemickens on Wednesday May 25, 2016 @08:32PM (#11774297)

It doesn't have anything to do with a commit breaking anything. It has to do with reproducability. As others have mentioned, a Dockerfile isn't perfect (I'd argue Dockerfile+Nix is pretty close) but at least you don't have to ask "Oh god, what did OJ Ford run manually before commiting the image we use in Prod." That's truly horrific and simply isn't a problem if you use a Dockerfile.

>Not everything's open source.

I don't know what that means. Whether the source is closed or not has zero impact on the use-cases I'm discussing for Docker. Even if the source of the base layer isn't available, it doesn't stop you from using that base layer in a new Dockerfile, at all.

[ Parent | on HN ]