Make it clear what kritis is
#25
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
One of the examples demonstrates building an arbitrary pipeline for a project called `kritis`, mostly b/c folks who are working on this project have also worked on `kritis` and are familiar with it, but it's not actually relevant to `bulid-pipeline` directly. Tried to make this more clear in the docs. Also in #2 we had a question about what `strawman` means (not the first time this has come up!) A defintion is avialable at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_proposal but also mentions it is "american business jargon" so if we want to go on using that term we should define it. Instead I removed it from the one place it exists in our docs. Since no one has completely beaten up the proposal yet it seems to be graduating beyond the "strawman" phase - but correct me if I'm wrong :D
|
That makes the pipeline example more clear, Thanks |
tejal29
suggested changes
Sep 10, 2018
| @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ | |||
| # Examples | |||
|
|
|||
| This directory contains examples of [the Pipeline strawman CRDs](../README.md) in action. | |||
| This directory contains examples of [the Pipeline CRDs](../README.md) in action. | |||
|
|
|||
| To deploy them to your cluster (after | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have never tested this.
Have you?
examples/README.md
Outdated
| This pipeline demonstartes how to integrate frontend [guestbook app code](https://github.com/kubernetes/examples/tree/master/guestbook-go) with backed [redis-docker image](https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/redis-docker/tree/master/4) provided by GCP. | ||
|
|
||
|  | ||
| [kritis-pipeline-run.yaml](./invocations/kritis-pipeline-run.yaml) shows an example of what it would look like to invoke the [kritis example pipeline](#example-pipelines) manually and have it fail on the second task (building and pushing the image). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a little bit confusing to me.
I am reading it as "User has configured this pipeline to fail at step 2"
Instead, the pipeline run controller determined the task failed and updated the status right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
good point! I've tried to make this more clear, PTAL
tejal29
approved these changes
Sep 10, 2018
chmouel
pushed a commit
to chmouel/tektoncd-pipeline
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 29, 2019
Update README to 0.3.0
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
One of the examples demonstrates building an arbitrary pipeline for
a project called
kritis, mostly b/c folks who are working on thisproject have also worked on
kritisand are familiar with it, but it'snot actually relevant to
bulid-pipelinedirectly. Tried to make thismore clear in the docs.
Also in #2 we had a question about what
strawmanmeans (not the firsttime this has come up!) A defintion is avialable at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_proposal
but also mentions it is "american business jargon" so if we want to go
on using that term we should define it. Instead I removed it from the
one place it exists in our docs. Since no one has completely beaten up
the proposal yet it seems to be graduating beyond the "strawman" phase -
but correct me if I'm wrong :D