-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 488
Release 5.0.15 #2077
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
Release 5.0.15 #2077
Conversation
Is it normal to encounter an
|
9fa356e
to
cd18911
Compare
cd18911
to
5ffb971
Compare
5ffb971
to
7c7e8f0
Compare
Test has been fixed, but don't merge until we get #2078 in |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Some remarks, but not sure if they are important. Is there some way we could use some kind of preprocessor to make this less error prone? The version number and Docker images are repeated very often and I guess it's now a search & replace upgrade.
BTW: This release procedure is a nightmare. How often does RedHat release new versions and do we need to do this?
@@ -5,6 +5,6 @@ annotations: | |||
operators.operatorframework.io.bundle.metadata.v1: metadata/ | |||
operators.operatorframework.io.bundle.package.v1: minio-operator-rhmp | |||
operators.operatorframework.io.bundle.channels.v1: stable | |||
operators.operatorframework.io.metrics.builder: operator-sdk-v1.22.2 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why do we use a custom release (v1.28.0-ocp
) instead of a regular baseline release? Latest release is v1.34.0 btw...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@cniackz ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is a good find. I need to update my local version to prevent any setbacks. Let me take care of that. Thanks, guys!
@@ -601,10 +601,10 @@ function install_operator_version() { | |||
if [ -z "$version" ]; then | |||
version=$(curl https://api.github.com/repos/minio/operator/releases/latest | jq --raw-output '.tag_name | "\(.[1:])"') | |||
fi | |||
echo "Target operator release: $version" | |||
echo "Target operator release: $version" # version value example is 5.0.14 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Shouldn't this be 5.0.15?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not really. Im not sure that we need to leave a hardcoded value in a comment but I suppose this is just an example.
In this test and specific PR deploy-tenant-upgrade.sh
, we are comparing the latest Operator release (5.0.14) to the current branch of Operator (master).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The reason I mentioned it is that I suspect that a next version will do a search on 5.0.15
and this may be left on 5.0.14
forever. Not a real issue for comments, but it may look a bit sloppy. I would keep that on the latest version, so it will be replaced too and kept up-to-date.
LGTM - just some small observations to take offline |
I will address all things in a new PR |
Objective:
To create new tag:
Release 5.0.15
Reasoning:
We want to begin showcasing the new MinIOJob functionality.
Documentation:
https://github.com/minio/operator/wiki/How-to-make-Operator-Release
Additional Information:
We broke upgrade test when deprecating the plugin in #2051, I am attempting to fix it by doing this:
Needed:
#2078