-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 118
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.
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
Document use of Cloud Native Buildpacks #310
Comments
Makes sense, thanks! A couple of q's:
Also-- what's Paketo? Is that a specific standard for Cloud Native / v3 buildpacks, or a catalog of them, or? Thanks again-- |
This was referenced Sep 20, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Since RFC0028 has been accepted, most of the work to support Cloud Native Buildpacks has been implemented and merged.
With RFC0031 even the support for Cloud Native Buildpacks as system buildpacks has been accepted and the implementation is currently in review.
This issue is meant to track documentation efforts around the use of Cloud Native Buildpacks in Cloud Foundry and I would like to get this started with a proposal for the documentation structure.
Looking at the current structure of https://docs.cloudfoundry.org/buildpacks/, we have the following and need to make sure Cloud Native Buildpacks fit in this nicely and naturally:
While there are similarities - in the end all versions of buildpacks are concerned with assembling an execution filesystem for different programming languages and environments - it seems to make sense to have separate documentation trees. We might want to make sure that similar topics are presented in a similar and recognizable way, but merging distinct information deeply will likely just create a bad experience for users of classical Cloud Foundry Buildpacks as well as Cloud Native Buildpacks.
We would propose to go for the following structure:
This would mainly focus on the historical background of buildpacks from v1 in Heroku to v2 in both Heroku and Cloud Foundry and finally v3 as a specification project in the CNCF and Paketo as a reference implementation from the Cloud Foundry Community.
This would pick up the topics from the corresponding chapter and subchapters of the CF buildpacks part above where and when it makes sense.
Instead of listing individual buildpacks, it seems to make more sense to reference the Paketo documentation more broadly.
Note: Actually, this might stay blank for now, as there is currently no system buildpack support yet and once this is there, a separate RFC is needed that might decide to take Paketo buildpacks as (batteries included) system buildpacks for cf-deployment. Only then it makes sense to give Paketo this level of attention.
This would mainly reference buildpacks.io (and might reference paketo.io) and should not duplicate documentation that is separately available.
Additionally, we of course need to make sure that e.g.
cf cli
changes andmanifest.yaml
changes are documented in the proper places.What you think?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: