Are you moving that dev image through the lower environments, or the prod one?
If it's the prod one, I think your pattern is fine. If it's the dev one I would feel like you're opening yourself up to potential issues by confirming things on a different binary than you are publishing to the real world
5 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 19.3 ms ] threadFix the bold to be patterns or anti-patterns, not both, or change the title to be something like lessons learned.
Can anyone comment on this? For example, many node projects have a list of devDependencies that have no use in production, so we build 3 images:
1. A base image with basically `NODE_ENV=production npm install`
2. A test image from the base with `NODE_ENV=development npm install`
3. A production image from step 1 with the CMD set.
Is this part of an "anti-pattern"? I thought it was how you'd get efficiently sized images in this situation.
(And yes, now that I write this I realize there only needs to be 2 images, the production one, and the test image is built from that)
If it's the prod one, I think your pattern is fine. If it's the dev one I would feel like you're opening yourself up to potential issues by confirming things on a different binary than you are publishing to the real world
What do you actually do with that dev image?
Instead of volume mapping like the article suggested, why not just log to stdout?