Uploaded image for project: 'Jenkins Website'
  1. Jenkins Website
  2. WEBSITE-474

"Installing Jenkins in Docker" section refers to Blue Ocean image instead of the official jenkins/jenkins one

    XMLWordPrintable

    Details

    • Similar Issues:

      Description

      It is a follow-up to the discussion in IRC. Apparently Jenkins Docker installation guidelines recommend the BlueOcean container instead of the official Jenkins one. See https://jenkins.io/doc/book/installing/#downloading-and-running-jenkins-in-docker

      See the screenshot

      CC Michael Neale

        Attachments

          Issue Links

            Activity

            Hide
            markewaite Mark Waite added a comment -

            I agree it is persuasion. I'm fine if we want to change the "Installing" page to recommend the jenkins/jenkins docker image. The three tutorials already give instructions to use the blueocean image for the tutorials.

            We likely also need to provide additional instructions for other types of installations (helm chart, etc.). I assume that's a future task while changing the recommended default is a more immediate task.

            Show
            markewaite Mark Waite added a comment - I agree it is persuasion. I'm fine if we want to change the "Installing" page to recommend the jenkins/jenkins docker image. The three tutorials already give instructions to use the blueocean image for the tutorials. We likely also need to provide additional instructions for other types of installations (helm chart, etc.). I assume that's a future task while changing the recommended default is a more immediate task.
            Hide
            oleg_nenashev Oleg Nenashev added a comment -

            It is fine to have both images in guidelines, but then we should start from jenkins/jenkins and then provide some pros/cons comparison

            Show
            oleg_nenashev Oleg Nenashev added a comment - It is fine to have both images in guidelines, but then we should start from jenkins/jenkins and then provide some pros/cons comparison
            Hide
            jglick Jesse Glick added a comment -

            Having a dedicated image for Blue Ocean does not make sense for users. Might be useful for demos, but that is it. We should guide users to either

            • Run jenkins/jenkins as is and use the Setup Wizard to install recommend plugins.
            • Produce a derivative image with declarative plugin configuration somehow aligned with S.W. recommendations.
            • Run Evergreen.
            Show
            jglick Jesse Glick added a comment - Having a dedicated image for Blue Ocean does not make sense for users. Might be useful for demos, but that is it. We should guide users to either Run jenkins/jenkins as is and use the Setup Wizard to install recommend plugins. Produce a derivative image with declarative plugin configuration somehow aligned with S.W. recommendations. Run Evergreen.
            Hide
            oleg_nenashev Oleg Nenashev added a comment -

            I would be in favor of a good BlueOcean image as a helpful bundle, but there is a serious UX issue in the current image: JENKINS-52069. jenkinci/blueocean is that plugins.txt is NOT compatible with the installation wizard. So it causes a really messy UX for thos who does not use Configuration-as-code. And there is no much sense to use the image with Configuration-as-code, because it can be easily defined in plugins.txt: https://github.com/oleg-nenashev/jenkins-blueocean-experimental/blob/java11/plugins.txt

            So I am in favor of deprecating the image if there is no plan to invest into improving it. And there is a dev list thread which suggests that there is no immediate plans for that: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/jenkinsci-dev/zNukeuLK4Og/KP3mfQ2ZFAAJ

             

             

            Show
            oleg_nenashev Oleg Nenashev added a comment - I would be in favor of a good BlueOcean image as a helpful bundle, but there is a serious UX issue in the current image: JENKINS-52069 . jenkinci/blueocean is that plugins.txt is NOT compatible with the installation wizard. So it causes a really messy UX for thos who does not use Configuration-as-code. And there is no much sense to use the image with Configuration-as-code, because it can be easily defined in plugins.txt: https://github.com/oleg-nenashev/jenkins-blueocean-experimental/blob/java11/plugins.txt So I am in favor of deprecating the image if there is no plan to invest into improving it. And there is a dev list thread which suggests that there is no immediate plans for that:  https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/jenkinsci-dev/zNukeuLK4Og/KP3mfQ2ZFAAJ    
            Hide
            alecharp Adrien Lecharpentier added a comment -
            Show
            alecharp Adrien Lecharpentier added a comment - I filled https://github.com/jenkins-infra/jenkins.io/pull/2148  to track this.

              People

              • Assignee:
                alecharp Adrien Lecharpentier
                Reporter:
                oleg_nenashev Oleg Nenashev
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                Watchers:
                5 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                • Created:
                  Updated: