3 ms·

you could avoid conflicts by not naming your project files "Dockerfile" or "Jenkinsfile" or "travis.yml"...

• mkobit 11y ago
  I don't like the Dockerfile or Jenkinsfile either, but I can kind of understand the .travis.yml. The good thing about the "Dockerfile" is that with most of the docker commands that interact with it, you can use the '-f' option to specify the file. For example "docker build -f dockerfiles/application.dockerfile" -t myapplication .". I don't see any easy way to do that with the Jenkinsfile. The amount of top-level files in these projects has started to become quite large, and it is unclear at first glance to see what it is important when exploring a new ecosystem. I'd like to see these products would move in a direction where these were would do any/some of the following: 1) use a file extension rather than "important" describing filename (.docker for Dockerfiles and .groovy/.jenkins for Jenkinsfile) 2) moved into a product specific folder (travisci/ci.yml, github/ for the issue and pull request templates) 3) use yet another top level file for indirection that is agreed upon (my initial thought is something named integrations.yml)