[DO NOT MERGE] Revert "Do not use VOLUME command in Dockerfiles"

[hhorak]

This reverts commit 987e5c5, because it breaks things: openshift/origin#19470

[hhorak]

[test-openshift]

[hhorak]

This effectively reverts #223, but @mfojtik said we should wait for @bparees before merging. Ben, let us know :)

[bparees]

sclorg/httpd-container#30 hasn't been resolved, so why would we do this?

[bparees]

since origin was fixed by openshift/origin#19470, i would say nothing further needs to be done.

(other than perhaps introducing a new volume test in origin)

[hhorak]

sclorg/httpd-container#30 hasn't been resolved, so why would we do this?

It actually was fixed already, just github issues was not closed (I've done it now).

[pkubatrh]

I thought we wanted to keep the issue open in order to track it for a future fix when Openshift Online is able to work with VOLUMEs

[hhorak]

@pkubatrh ah, forgot about that, re-opening.

[hhorak]

@bparees, Now I'm puzzled a bit, from what @mfojtik said I had a feeling that VOLUME set for databases images is actually beneficial, because users can be advised to use PV.. is that not a fair assumption? it seems to me like it's a trade-off between this advice and making s2i working in OpenShift online.. and I'm kinda clue-less what is more important use case. :)

[bparees]

@hhorak yes that's pretty much the trade off. there's just no good answer today.

but ultimately i'd say making s2i work in online is more important because there is no workaround for that issue. Users not understanding which volume they need to map is unfortunate, but that's in part why we have templates that help set all that up.

[bparees]

(docs for the images that tell users what the volumes should be can also help)

[hhorak]

@bparees Ok, thanks for you PoV. We did the change deliberately just in one database image at this point, to see what issues we can cause (we hoped for none, but were proofed wrong). I'd wait for further feedback (~month) before doing the same thing again for other images, so we don't break everything at once.
@mfojtik, if there are no other issues and we'll decide removing the VOLUME in other database images, can we expect the same thing fail again on your site?

[bparees]

@mfojtik, if there are no other issues and we'll decide removing the VOLUME in other database images, can we expect the same thing fail again on your site?

we'd have to scan our tests to see if we have other tests consuming the images you're changing and that expect to see volumes. I wouldn't expect a bunch, we probably just picked the mysql image to exercise new-app.

[hhorak]

It seems like we're ok to keep the image as it is, without VOLUME. So, closing.