Skip to content

Conversation

@jottofar
Copy link
Contributor

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Nov 17, 2020
@wking
Copy link
Member

wking commented Nov 17, 2020

/lgtm

Subsequent work on bundling and the Makefile will actually consume the new SDK. For now, we're just recommending maintainers run the SDK commands locally, so the README bump is the main thing here.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Nov 17, 2020
Copy link
Member

@LalatenduMohanty LalatenduMohanty left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: jottofar, LalatenduMohanty

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
  • OWNERS [LalatenduMohanty,jottofar]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 322b4d1 into openshift:master Nov 17, 2020
PratikMahajan pushed a commit to PratikMahajan/cincinnati-operator that referenced this pull request Mar 17, 2021
Adding information why 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 is not in fast,stable 4.3
PratikMahajan pushed a commit to PratikMahajan/cincinnati-operator that referenced this pull request Mar 17, 2021
This was originally from b1465b7 (Information on why 4.3.2 and
4.3.3 not in fast and stable channels of 4.3, 2020-03-03, openshift#87), but
upon further review it is not severe enough to warrant blocked edges
or promotions [1].

[1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1805444#c9
PratikMahajan pushed a commit to PratikMahajan/cincinnati-operator that referenced this pull request Mar 17, 2021
This was originally from b1465b7 (Information on why 4.3.2 and
4.3.3 not in fast and stable channels of 4.3, 2020-03-03, openshift#87), but
upon further review it is not a regression and so does not warrant
blocked edges or promotions [1].

[1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808429#c6
PratikMahajan pushed a commit to PratikMahajan/cincinnati-operator that referenced this pull request Mar 17, 2021
Expanding on the link from b1465b7 (Information on why 4.3.2 and
4.3.3 not in fast and stable channels of 4.3, 2020-03-03, openshift#87).
Coarse blocks landed in 1161d00 (Added 4.3.2->4.3.3 to channels,
2020-03-06, openshift#100), but the leak only affects 4.y -> 4.(y+1) updates,
since those are the only transitions where manifests dropped container
ports [1].

Block 4.2 -> 4.3 for 4.3 before 4.3.5 because of the port bug.  4.2 ->
4.3.1 had been blocked before, although that block was lifted in
c641bbd (channels/fast-4.2: Promote 4.2.18 (and 4.2.18+amd64 to
fast-4.3), 2020-02-19, openshift#60).  I think 1161d00's broader .* blocks
(which I'm relaxing to 4.2.* blocks) on the earlier 4.3 releases were
because the Multus bug affects all updates, but, as explained in
a5f394d (blocked-edges/4.3.*: Drop references to Multus bug
1805444, 2020-03-20, openshift#119), the Multus bug is actually not an update
blocker.

Also, no need to talk about these in the channel YAML files, since we
aren't tombstoning the releases (we discovered the bug after marking
the releases supported by tagging them into fast channels).

[1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801300#c35
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants