-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 187
schema: Add entry for base-oscontainer #2907
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
Conversation
|
I was trying to follow in the footsteps of the kubevirt change in #2750 And right there I have questions - like, why are there two files at all? Then the schema is apparently copied again into both mantle and gangplank code? 🤯 |
36f409b to
51a7d11
Compare
|
Yeah, the multiple copies aren't great. The test is there because our current architecture requires them, and we kept breaking things by getting the copies out of sync. You'll need to revendor both gangplank and mantle. |
51a7d11 to
92195a6
Compare
Comments on #2821 appreciated 😄
Ahhh! Now I see the bit and I understand how this works. |
7a922fb to
4cf0fe4
Compare
|
OK, tested this fully now. |
4cf0fe4 to
7218634
Compare
|
/override ci/prow/rhcos |
|
@cgwalters: Overrode contexts on behalf of cgwalters: ci/prow/rhcos DetailsIn response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
/override ci/prow/rhcos |
|
@cgwalters: Overrode contexts on behalf of cgwalters: ci/prow/rhcos DetailsIn response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
schema/cosa/schema_doc.go
Outdated
| "amis", | ||
| "azure", | ||
| "azurestack", | ||
| "baseos-container", |
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.
Bikeshed: should this be base-oscontainer instead for consistency with the existing oscontainer?
Or maybe native-oscontainer to better highlight the difference between the two.
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.
OK renamed to base-oscontainer.
For now, we need to support having the new format oscontainer in `meta.json`. Part of coreos#2685 And see coreos#2685 (comment) in particular.
While I am trying to actively sever the dependence of the base container image build on `meta.json`, there's no reason not to inject it into `meta.json` in this flow too because the build system already requires it.
7218634 to
4a979eb
Compare
|
Note we should change the FCOS pipeline to use this here https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-pipeline/blob/515ae3806f70dc3ede18c9a885bade2d0cce3d2f/jobs/release.Jenkinsfile#L132 Also, this is going require changing the RHCOS pipeline to also do:
|
For now, we need to support having the new format oscontainer in
meta.json.Part of #2685
And see #2685 (comment)
in particular.