Nicolas De loof
Nicolas De loof
@gzapatas nice. Why don't you propose this as a pull-request?
rien que d'y penser ça me fout un coup de vieux tiens... pourtant on m'avait dit que les "_Cool URIs don't change_".
we could indeed clarify cyclic dependencies are banned, and offer code do detect them in compose-go (code actually already exists in docker/compose)
I agree build platform should be by default == runtime platform, but we should introduce a new platform attribute on build section to cover multi-platform builds, which would be very...
I didn't know about the `x-bake` extension(s). @tonistiigi could you please make a formal proposal for this on the spec? Extensions are a nice way to experiment things on compose-related...
please sign-off your commits or we can't legally accept your contributions About this PR, please avoid using actual numbers for ordered list, as introducing new flieds would require to change...
we could also just adopt https://github.com/thlorenz/doctoc so we don't have to maintain this
This doc is based on https://docs.docker.com/compose/compose-file/compose-file-v3/#secrets which does not define support for absolute paths. docker-compose indeed do support those, and I don't see reasons not to allow this.
In terms of a specification, it would be interesting to get Singularity accept a compose.yaml file that conforms to the spec (for sample, using `services` not `instances`). This doesn't mean...
Build support is optional (as all other attributes) as long as your implementation is able to warn user, but best effort to support some conversion to your own building system...