How does the docker entrypoint work? I have base docker image which has a entrypoint script and I am building another image on top of that which has one more entrypoint script. When I run the image will both the entrypoint scripts run?
I disagree with the mod on this one, but they seem to disagree with my flag so I thought I'd bring it back here to discuss.
There is a factual based answer that has existed for years with docker, as long as I've known the product, a container can only have a single entrypoint. And there's guidance that can be provided on how others have solved similar problems.
After posting the edit, I flagged it for a mod to review and reopen, and was declined saying "the community can see that it was edited and cast their votes", and yet a single binding vote was cast by a mod to close it. The feels like a double standard that can make SE sites feel less welcoming to new users.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but it feels like a fairly straight forward question that I've heard from other docker users before.
@BMitch - When a question is edited for the first time it is automatically put into the reopen queue. Infact it currently has 4 reopen votes. The process is working as it should
Seems like the community was split on that one.
It requires 5 votes to reopen.
@BMitch - There were some additional grammatical mistakes. I went ahead and fixed those, since the author was talking about ENTRYPOINT I made that clear.
Looks like it finally got enough votes to reopen. I don't have enough rep on this site to see/cast close votes or queues.
@Ramhound My view is if a single mod casts a binding vote to hold a question, and then the issue gets corrected, a single mod should be enough to reopen the question (preferably by the same mod, or with some back channel discussion). Only reason to leave it closed is if some other issues exist with the question which I couldn't identify myself.
Full disclosure, I am a mod on DIY, and have over 75k of rep on SO, so I have a general idea of how the process should work, and me coming back here to chat with the site mods was part of that process.
@JourneymanGeek For me it was clear, but I've seen a lot of questions on docker. The original question did need improvement and I agree with the original decision to place it on hold.
I was mainly dropping in here in case a mod could say "well, we didn't reopen because it also violated some other policy, or this user is a known trouble maker."
Completely agreed that the original had lots of issues. Had it not gotten enough reopen votes, my concern was that it would turn a new user away from the site. I'm trying to do my best with the code of conduct.
Oh lord, I just had my morning laugh, never realized we had a clippy.
I'll structure this as a question.
You have probably seen closed questions that you thought should be reopened, but it didn't happen. You may have chalked it up to community decision. But if you thought they qualified to reopen, there's a good chance they remained closed for no good reason.
Q...
I'll structure this as a question.
You have probably seen closed questions that you thought should be reopened, but it didn't happen. You may have chalked it up to community decision. But if you thought they qualified to reopen, there's a good chance they remained closed for no good reason.
Q...
