Document extends lack of support in Docker Stack
#23816
Open
+6
−0
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
`extends` is not supported in `docker stack`, for no good reason, and it’s documented nowhere.
In the Multiple Compose Files guide. Mention the useless message that `docker stack config` spits out, so that search engines can find it.
github-actions
bot
added
the
area/compose
✅ Deploy Preview for docsdocker ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
oscherler
changed the title
extends lack of support in Docker Stack
oscherler
changed the title
extends lack of support in Docker Stackextends lack of support in Docker Stack
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description
Mention that the
extendsproperty of services in compose files is not supported indocker stack, as it’s documented nowhere.Reviews
I’m open to suggestions for better wording, but I’d rather that this PR is rejected because it’s been made obsolete (by just implementing the missing feature.)