Skip to content

Conversation

@mtrmac
Copy link
Collaborator

@mtrmac mtrmac commented Aug 9, 2024

We are on the 5.32 branch and the previous release was 5.32.1.

@TomSweeneyRedHat FYI: I’m afraid the just-created 5.32.1 calls itself 5.33.1.

We are on the 5.32 branch and the previous release was 5.32.1.

Signed-off-by: Miloslav Trmač <mitr@redhat.com>
@TomSweeneyRedHat
Copy link
Member

OH CRUD. I just saw this and just did what I thought was the last dance of the vendor dance. Do I need to get another dance card?

@TomSweeneyRedHat
Copy link
Member

LGTM

@mheon
Copy link
Member

mheon commented Aug 13, 2024

Do we need to retract the tag? I know the last time we tried that Go vendoring got very, very angry with us.

@mtrmac
Copy link
Collaborator Author

mtrmac commented Aug 13, 2024

I don’t think we need to re-spin, re-vendor, or do anything urgent; I’d just like this PR to be merged on the branch to fix it for the future 5.32.2, if any.

The tag visible to Go tooling is 5.32.1, that’s fine. We don’t need to do anything in go.mod.

The version number in version/version.go is, AFAICS, only visible in HTTP User-Agent headers, and included in generated signatures. In both cases the consumers might be a little confused, but with both 5.32.1 and 5.33.1 being completely new, I don’t think including a larger number could break anything.

We might want to consider skipping a future 5.33.1, to make the User-Agent/signature version numbers unambiguous (going straight to 5.34.0, or maybe from 5.33.0 to 5.33.2), but I am not going to lose sleep if that doesn’t happen.

@TomSweeneyRedHat TomSweeneyRedHat merged commit 4bcaca1 into containers:release-5.32 Aug 13, 2024
@mtrmac mtrmac deleted the 5.32-version branch August 13, 2024 19:59
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants