🐳 #43
Open
🐳 #43
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Hey guys!
First of all, kudos for designing and implementing nagibabel.js, it proposes a paradigm that I tried on several of my unfinished pet projects and it works just great! Looking forward to the moment the industry largely adapts the approach.
I thought that it might be great to make nagibabel.js more user-friendly towards those devs, who do not have node installed on their machines. So, I wrote a tiny Dockerfile that allows to run nagibabel.js as a container (containers are still sexy, right?).
Unfortunately, Docker does not allow to process a mounted directory directly, and to deal with this limitation I decided to change the nagibabel.js code a bit by using a "best-effort" scenario in case of a rimraf error.
Tell me what you think about this. If you prefer not to change the logic of the utility, we can fallback to the second method of the container usage (as described in README.md).
Cheers