Add support for docker-compose.yml files.

[oceanBT]

All credits goes to @pedropombeiro! I just reopend his PR. See original PR #1431 for more details.

Fix #390

[JeffResc]

Any update on this? Looks like it's been a pending PR for two years now...

[maxekman]

Any update on this? Would love to have support for Docker Compose updates. Currently we have to resort to https://github.com/renovatebot/renovate for this.

[jeffwidman]

👋 Sorry for the delayed response.

The reason it's "floating" is that we're currently not accepting new ecosystems, but we're also not planning for that to be true forever. So PR's adding new ecosystems are currently on-pause. Once we have the capacity to support new ecosystems, then we plan to go through some of these PR's evaluating them on case-by-case basis.

[netsandbox]

@jeffwidman this PR doesn't add a new ecosytem, it just improves a existing docker ecosystem by adding support for a commonly used file where docker images are defined.

So it would be great if you can check again if this PR should be on hold because of the "currently not accepting new ecosystems" policy.

[Fuochi]

👋 Sorry for the delayed response.

The reason it's "floating" is that we're currently not accepting new ecosystems, but we're also not planning for that to be true forever. So PR's adding new ecosystems are currently on-pause. Once we have the capacity to support new ecosystems, then we plan to go through some of these PR's evaluating them on case-by-case basis.

Hi @jeffwidman
Few months ago, PR #5348 has been accepted. It is very similar, at least in concept, to this one. Does that mean that a PR for docker compose can be taken into consideration now?

[yeikel]

@jeffwidman Is there any chance you can reconsider the label for this change?

I also agree with the previous sentiment that this is not a new ecosystem. This change enhances the existing support for docker as docker compose files are effectively part of the same docker ecosystem

[jeffwidman]

@jeffwidman Is there any chance you can reconsider the label for this change?

I also agree with the previous sentiment that this is not a new ecosystem. This change enhances the existing support for docker as docker compose files are effectively part of the same docker ecosystem

Let's have that discussion on the associated issue, and keep the discussion on this PR about implementation details if/when we're ready to pull it in.

On that note, I posted my thoughts on the topic over in that ticket here:
#390 (comment)

[port19x]

Does anybody know if it is possible to use this fork and how?
I see that dependabot.yml includes a version field, but I don't think I can just point to this branch with that.
Disappointing that this takes several years to merge.

[fetwar]

Is there a way we can help out with this PR?

What can we do to get this change that is highly sought after since 2018 and in review and put on hold multiple times since 2019 off the ground?

I would love to use this feature as would so many others. Supporting Docker but not Docker Compose means so many workflows are broken and the available workarounds either mean migrating from this tool entirely, or breaking the image pulling without building functionality in existing codebases provided by Docker Compose.

---

Potential Ideas

• Provide a list of tasks or other blocking jobs that could aide the PR in being reviewed for the community to pitch in and help with.
• Allow as an experimental or beta feature, or document as being a work in progress, which allows the minimum viable product to still be used and tested by others.
• Seek additional maintainers to lessen the workload and prevent review from blocking PRs for years at a time

These are just some quick notes, all with the best intentions, all responses are welcome

[xenago]

Any status update on this? Support for Docker but not compose remains a large gap

[fetwar]

Since commenting I've switched to using Mend Renovate instead, it is night and day better than dependabot