Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Docs: Section on Upgrading to Packaging CRs from Existing App CRs #187

Open
danielhelfand opened this issue May 3, 2021 · 0 comments
Open
Labels
carvel-accepted This issue should be considered for future work and that the triage process has been completed documentation This issue indicates a change to the docs should be considered priority/awaiting-more-evidence Lowest priority. Possibly useful, but not yet enough support to actually get it done.

Comments

@danielhelfand
Copy link
Contributor

Users of kapp-controller who have been using App CRs for existing workloads may eventually want to change to using packaging CRs with kapp-controller. There should be kapp-controller docs created that point out key factors to accomplish this update. The use case of these docs is captured in #184 and this issue may depend on the outcome of this comment in #184.

Some things to consider when writing these docs are:

  • How to replicate the App spec when creating a Package CR in order to preserve the existing App CR?
  • How InstalledPackages know what App to use if the App CR already exists (i.e. the InstalledPackage should have the same name as the App CR)
  • Where to create the InstalledPackage (i.e. in the App CR namespace)
@danielhelfand danielhelfand added carvel-triage This issue has not yet been reviewed for validity carvel-accepted This issue should be considered for future work and that the triage process has been completed documentation This issue indicates a change to the docs should be considered and removed carvel-triage This issue has not yet been reviewed for validity labels May 3, 2021
@neil-hickey neil-hickey added the priority/awaiting-more-evidence Lowest priority. Possibly useful, but not yet enough support to actually get it done. label Feb 22, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
carvel-accepted This issue should be considered for future work and that the triage process has been completed documentation This issue indicates a change to the docs should be considered priority/awaiting-more-evidence Lowest priority. Possibly useful, but not yet enough support to actually get it done.
Projects
Status: Unprioritized
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants