Bump k8s to 1.29 versions #6736
Conversation
openshift-merge-robot
added
the
needs-rebase
Neo2308
force-pushed
the
feature/master/bump-k8s-1.29
branch
from
a1a62cb
to
e6fb2d8
Compare
openshift-merge-robot
removed
the
needs-rebase
openshift-merge-robot
added
the
needs-rebase
openshift-merge-robot
removed
the
needs-rebase
|
@joelanford, @everettraven, @acornett21 could you review this PR? |
|
@Neo2308 This doesn't have the proper version of the ansilbe-plugin, I'll work on releasing today. Also, it doesn't have the proper version of the helm plugin, since we'll need to backfill that to have a matching version of kubebuilder. |
Signed-off-by: Neo2308 <[email protected]>
|
@Neo2308 Can you pull this version in for the java plugin? |
Signed-off-by: Neo2308 <[email protected]>
|
Hi @Neo2308 Sorry for the delay, but it took 11 PR's to get the You can use this version in this PR I think after this all the deps are in proper shape, we'd just have to look to make sure all scaffolding/testing/etc passes CI. |
Signed-off-by: Neo2308 <[email protected]>
|
@acornett21 any idea how to fix the failing docs sanity? |
| k8s.io/cli-runtime v0.28.5 | ||
| k8s.io/client-go v0.28.5 | ||
| k8s.io/kubectl v0.28.5 | ||
| helm.sh/helm/v3 v3.14.3 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey, if there isn't any problem with version compatibility, is it possible to bump Helm to v3.15.0, which can also help fix CVE-2019-25210?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is a problem with version compatibility, 3.15 is based off of k8s 1.30, so if helm was updated here it would also update k8s which is not what we want. That version will be part of the k8s 1.30 work.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Makes sense. Thanks a lot, @acornett21.
|
@Neo2308 Doing some testing today, and am updating the PR description as I find more issues this fixes/closes. |
|
I've tested all the things I care to test and everything looks good. |
|
Hi @Neo2308 Can you change the below? https://github.com/operator-framework/operator-sdk/blob/master/website/config.toml#L202 to It seems like there is a limit on the number of subdomains. Thanks. |
Signed-off-by: Neo2308 <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Apart from the change made in website/config.toml, rest of it looks good! Changing that would end up triggering a change in netlify configuration (iirc), and that's something we don't want in this PR. Could you please revert it back?
@Neo2308 Thanks for the contribution! Rest of the changes look good!
/lgtm after its reverted.
| @@ -199,7 +199,7 @@ url_latest_version = "https://sdk.operatorframework.io" | |||
|
|
|||
| [[params.versions]] | |||
| version = "v1.20" | |||
| url = "https://v1-20-x.sdk.operatorframework.io" | |||
| url = "https://github.com/operator-framework/operator-sdk/tree/v1.20.x/website/content/en/docs" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this should be reverted back. This change is made only with the release PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is needed since v1-20-x is no longer a subdomain, without this change the docs GHA fails
Description of the change:
TODO:
Motivation for the change:
Checklist
If the pull request includes user-facing changes, extra documentation is required:
changelog/fragments(seechangelog/fragments/00-template.yaml)website/content/en/docs