Introduces Tekton bundles: take 2 #3142

pierretasci · 2020-08-26T20:15:38Z

Changes

Introduces Tekton Bundles with docs, apis, examples, and updates to the reconcilers to allow Task and Pipeline references from Tekton Bundles

Note, I had to re-submit this PR to get the CLA to pass

Summary of changes:

adds docs for how to use Tekton Bundles as refs including a tekton bundle contract
adds a field to task and pipeline refs to specify a tekton bundle url
adds validation and tests to the api
Wires up the OCI remote fetcher to the pipeline ref and task ref handlers
adds tests into the pipelinerun and taskrun reconcilers to test for remote refs
requires a change to the way we resolve tasks in the pipelinerun resource handler because we want to decide how to fetch each task ref on a case by case basis instead of using one uniform task fetcher

This is a large change but there are significant side-effects to any one part of this change and it felt half-hearted to only provide the API change to either tasksruns or pipelines and not both at the same time.

Submitter Checklist

Includes tests (if functionality changed/added)
Includes docs (if user facing)
Commit messages follow commit message best practices
Release notes block has been filled in or deleted (only if no user facing changes)

Release Notes

Task and Pipeline refs now support remote references via Tekton Bundles. Disabled by default. Enable bundles with feature flag.

linux-foundation-easycla · 2020-08-26T20:15:41Z

The committers are authorized under a signed CLA.

✅ Pierre Tasci (99ca8dd, 0d79f7a, 9bf6dc3, 3d1cb16)

tekton-robot · 2020-08-26T20:15:53Z

Hi @pierretasci. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a tektoncd member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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.

pritidesai · 2020-08-27T01:03:28Z

/ok-to-test
/kind feature

tekton-robot · 2020-08-27T01:08:19Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
internal/builder/v1beta1/pipeline.go	81.8%	82.4%	0.6
internal/builder/v1beta1/task.go	75.5%	75.7%	0.2
pkg/apis/pipeline/v1beta1/pipelinerun_validation.go	96.4%	97.0%	0.5
pkg/apis/pipeline/v1beta1/taskrun_validation.go	97.4%	97.7%	0.3
pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/pipelinerun.go	86.3%	85.0%	-1.4
pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/resources/pipelineref.go	66.7%	61.9%	-4.8
pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/resources/pipelinerunresolution.go	90.2%	90.3%	0.2
pkg/reconciler/taskrun/resources/taskref.go	75.0%	60.6%	-14.4
pkg/reconciler/taskrun/taskrun.go	78.3%	77.3%	-1.0
pkg/remote/oci/resolver.go	76.3%	76.9%	0.6

bobcatfish · 2020-08-27T18:09:03Z

Note, I had to re-submit this PR to get the CLA to pass

usually force pushing a slightly modified commit works as well (not that that is a great solution either)

tekton-robot · 2020-08-27T20:44:22Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
internal/builder/v1beta1/pipeline.go	81.8%	82.4%	0.6
internal/builder/v1beta1/task.go	75.5%	75.7%	0.2
pkg/apis/pipeline/v1beta1/pipelinerun_validation.go	96.4%	97.0%	0.5
pkg/apis/pipeline/v1beta1/taskrun_validation.go	97.4%	97.7%	0.3
pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/pipelinerun.go	86.3%	85.1%	-1.2
pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/resources/pipelineref.go	66.7%	61.9%	-4.8
pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/resources/pipelinerunresolution.go	90.2%	90.3%	0.2
pkg/reconciler/taskrun/resources/taskref.go	75.0%	60.6%	-14.4
pkg/reconciler/taskrun/taskrun.go	78.9%	77.9%	-1.0
pkg/remote/oci/resolver.go	76.3%	76.9%	0.6

pritidesai · 2020-08-28T00:19:02Z

@pierretasci Haven't looked at the changes yet but from the PR policy perspective, we need to squash five commits into one 😞 and fix the release note section, delete extra spaces before "```release-note".

This is very exciting and hoping to review it soon.

imjasonh

Lookin' good! Can't wait to see tkn support, especially, looking at the contract docs.

imjasonh · 2020-08-28T08:39:11Z

examples/v1beta1/taskruns/tekton-bundles.yaml

+spec:
+  taskRef:
+    name: hello-world
+    bundle: registry.hub.docker.com/ptasci67/test-oci@sha256:7a8e6b41d37e16c86dc38fbb395673fe496edb9ac759aee135df488b55b4c732


We should move this to a Tekton-owned repo, maybe gcr.io/tekton-nightly?

Absolutely! I don't think I have push access to that repo but I am happy to figure out how to do that or work with someone who does have push permissions.

Yeah what we'll probably end up doing is moving this to a real Go test that pushes a bundle image first then references it, to ensure it's there and up-to-date.

We can stick with this for now, but we should have a TODO to clean it up soon, in case Docker deletes the image or something 😅

imjasonh · 2020-08-28T08:45:37Z

pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/pipelinerun_test.go

 	// Check that the expected TaskRun was created
-	actual := actions[1].(ktesting.CreateAction).GetObject().(*v1beta1.TaskRun)
+	actual := actions[2].(ktesting.CreateAction).GetObject().(*v1beta1.TaskRun)


Is there some way we could loop and find the right action, instead of pulling out the one we expect to be right by index? This feels really brittle to implementation changes.

As someone who had to change all these I am highly inclined to agree so to reduce the brittleness I added two helper functions!

imjasonh · 2020-08-28T08:47:57Z

pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/pipelinerun_test.go

+	funParam := tb.PipelineTaskParam("foo", "somethingfun")
+	moreFunParam := tb.PipelineTaskParam("bar", "$(params.bar)")
+	templatedParam := tb.PipelineTaskParam("templatedparam", "$(inputs.workspace.$(params.rev-param))")
+	ps := tb.Pipeline("test-pipeline",


I'd prefer not to add new usages of test builders if we can avoid it. I'm (slowly) trying to weed them out in favor of structs.

Sure. Happy to change it though I am genuinely curious why we are moving away from builders. As the change shows, it is a bit tedious to write out the whole thing.

pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/pipelinerun_test.go

imjasonh · 2020-08-28T08:52:33Z

pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/resources/pipelineref_test.go

+		remotePipelines []runtime.Object
+		ref             *v1beta1.PipelineRef
+		expected        runtime.Object
+	}{


Nit: you can save some horizontal space by putting both {{s on the same line here.

imjasonh · 2020-08-28T09:00:40Z

This is going to have so many merge conflicts with #3115 😅

But this is definitely higher priority than that, so let's get this in first and I'll clean up.

pierretasci · 2020-08-28T14:26:42Z

@pierretasci Haven't looked at the changes yet but from the PR policy perspective, we need to squash five commits into one 😞 and fix the release note section, delete extra spaces before "```release-note".

This is very exciting and hoping to review it soon.

Much appreciated! Done.

tekton-robot · 2020-08-28T14:31:31Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
internal/builder/v1beta1/pipeline.go	81.8%	82.4%	0.6
internal/builder/v1beta1/task.go	75.5%	75.7%	0.2
pkg/apis/pipeline/v1beta1/pipelinerun_validation.go	96.4%	97.0%	0.5
pkg/apis/pipeline/v1beta1/taskrun_validation.go	97.4%	97.7%	0.3
pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/pipelinerun.go	86.3%	85.1%	-1.2
pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/resources/pipelineref.go	66.7%	61.9%	-4.8
pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/resources/pipelinerunresolution.go	90.2%	90.3%	0.2
pkg/reconciler/taskrun/resources/taskref.go	75.0%	60.6%	-14.4
pkg/reconciler/taskrun/taskrun.go	78.9%	77.9%	-1.0
pkg/remote/oci/resolver.go	76.3%	76.9%	0.6

pierretasci

Addressed feedback from ImJasonH

pierretasci · 2020-08-28T14:47:00Z

examples/v1beta1/taskruns/tekton-bundles.yaml

+spec:
+  taskRef:
+    name: hello-world
+    bundle: registry.hub.docker.com/ptasci67/test-oci@sha256:7a8e6b41d37e16c86dc38fbb395673fe496edb9ac759aee135df488b55b4c732


Absolutely! I don't think I have push access to that repo but I am happy to figure out how to do that or work with someone who does have push permissions.

pierretasci · 2020-08-28T14:47:50Z

pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/resources/pipelineref_test.go

+		remotePipelines []runtime.Object
+		ref             *v1beta1.PipelineRef
+		expected        runtime.Object
+	}{


pierretasci · 2020-08-28T22:26:45Z

pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/pipelinerun_test.go

 	// Check that the expected TaskRun was created
-	actual := actions[1].(ktesting.CreateAction).GetObject().(*v1beta1.TaskRun)
+	actual := actions[2].(ktesting.CreateAction).GetObject().(*v1beta1.TaskRun)


As someone who had to change all these I am highly inclined to agree so to reduce the brittleness I added two helper functions!

pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/pipelinerun_test.go

pierretasci · 2020-08-28T23:40:27Z

pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/pipelinerun_test.go

+	funParam := tb.PipelineTaskParam("foo", "somethingfun")
+	moreFunParam := tb.PipelineTaskParam("bar", "$(params.bar)")
+	templatedParam := tb.PipelineTaskParam("templatedparam", "$(inputs.workspace.$(params.rev-param))")
+	ps := tb.Pipeline("test-pipeline",


Sure. Happy to change it though I am genuinely curious why we are moving away from builders. As the change shows, it is a bit tedious to write out the whole thing.

tekton-robot · 2020-08-28T23:44:51Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
internal/builder/v1beta1/pipeline.go	81.8%	82.4%	0.6
internal/builder/v1beta1/task.go	75.5%	75.7%	0.2
pkg/apis/pipeline/v1beta1/pipelinerun_validation.go	96.4%	97.0%	0.5
pkg/apis/pipeline/v1beta1/taskrun_validation.go	97.4%	97.7%	0.3
pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/pipelinerun.go	86.3%	85.1%	-1.2
pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/resources/pipelineref.go	66.7%	61.9%	-4.8
pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/resources/pipelinerunresolution.go	90.2%	90.3%	0.2
pkg/reconciler/taskrun/resources/taskref.go	75.0%	60.6%	-14.4
pkg/reconciler/taskrun/taskrun.go	78.9%	77.9%	-1.0
pkg/remote/oci/resolver.go	76.3%	76.9%	0.6

tekton-robot · 2020-08-31T16:50:13Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
internal/builder/v1beta1/pipeline.go	81.8%	82.4%	0.6
internal/builder/v1beta1/task.go	75.5%	75.7%	0.2
pkg/apis/pipeline/v1beta1/pipelinerun_validation.go	96.4%	97.0%	0.5
pkg/apis/pipeline/v1beta1/taskrun_validation.go	97.4%	97.7%	0.3
pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/pipelinerun.go	86.3%	85.1%	-1.2
pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/resources/pipelineref.go	66.7%	61.9%	-4.8
pkg/reconciler/pipelinerun/resources/pipelinerunresolution.go	90.2%	90.3%	0.2
pkg/reconciler/taskrun/resources/taskref.go	75.0%	60.6%	-14.4
pkg/reconciler/taskrun/taskrun.go	78.9%	77.9%	-1.0
pkg/remote/oci/resolver.go	76.3%	76.9%	0.6

imjasonh · 2020-09-01T00:54:00Z

Sure. Happy to change it though I am genuinely curious why we are moving away from builders. As the change shows, it is a bit tedious to write out the whole thing.

There's been some debate about their usefulness, especially compared with the effort it takes to hand-write the builder methods, keep them consistently named with consistent behavior, etc. -- by comparison, simply writing out the structs is natively supported already, and though it might end up being more keystrokes, I think it's actually more readable in the end. So now I'm on a crusade to wipe out test builders everywhere. 😅

dlorenc · 2020-09-01T15:22:55Z

docs/pipelines.md

+ ```yaml
+ spec:
+   tasks:
+     - name: hello-world


nit: i think the - name: list can be unindented a bit.

dlorenc · 2020-09-01T15:23:02Z

docs/pipelines.md

+ ```yaml
+ spec:
+   tasks:
+     - name: hello-world  


same here: unindent.

dlorenc · 2020-09-01T15:23:34Z

docs/pipelines.md

+     - name: hello-world  
+       taskRef:
+         name: echo-task
+         bundle: docker.com/myrepo/mycatalog@sha256:abc123


I know this is just an example, but I think this should be "index.docker.io/myrepo/mycatalog..."

dlorenc · 2020-09-01T15:24:12Z

docs/taskruns.md

+spec:
+taskRef:
+  name: echo-task
+  bundle: docker.com/myrepo/mycatalog


same as above - I think this needs to be index.docker.io for Dockerhub.

dlorenc · 2020-09-01T15:24:58Z

docs/taskruns.md

+`metadata.name` field of the `Task`. 
+
+You may also specify a `tag` as you would with a Docker image which will give you a fixed,
+repeatable reference to a `Task`.


Wouldn't the digest be the "fixed repeatable reference"?

AFAIK, best practice is to treat tags as fixed elements but that is not an enforced aspect of the spec so I will call out digests as well

pkg/apis/pipeline/v1beta1/pipelinerun_types.go

dlorenc · 2020-09-01T15:45:08Z

docs/taskruns.md

+of the same named `Task` to be run at once.
+
+`Tekton Bundles` may be constructed with any toolsets that produces valid OCI image artifacts so long as
+the artifact adheres to the [contract](tekton-bundle-contract.md). Additionally, you may also use the `tkn`


nit: the file is named "contracts", not "contract"

dlorenc · 2020-09-01T15:46:21Z

docs/tekton-bundle-contracts.md

+Each { `apiVersion`, `kind`, `title` } must be unique in the image. No resources of the
+same version and kind can be named the same.
+
+The contents of each layer must be the parsed YAML of the corresponding Tekton resource. If


Is the layer still a gzipped tar file, or just the raw YAML?

Good point. This is a bit confusing as worded. The intention is that you should inject a single object into each layer in YAML/JSON form and then perform the standard compression/digesting required by the OCI spec. I will reword this to be more clear

I looked at the code to see what actually happens, it might be worth specifying a bit more here. Each layer is a raw yaml file, we don't do any "tar-ing". That then gets compressed as it is stored in the registry.

I like this approach - but there are some cons to think through:

Do we ever think we'll want to have multiple files per bundle? We can't do that without a tar.

"docker pull/docker save" and "crane pull" expect image layers to be tars. The mime type is actually application/vnd.oci.image.layer.v1.tar+gzip - so clients might be expecting a tar here. We could change the mime type, but that might not be supported everywhere.

Admittedly my knowledge of the underlying OCI standard is minimal but I will give it a go based on what I think I know. My understanding is that the go-containerregistry tool before uploading the image, performs the necessary compression and tar'ing to make the image conform to the standard expected by the registry. If that is the case, I believe that means that while we store and read YAML bytes, transiently there is some compressing/decompressing happening.

Also, I am able to store multiple files in a bundle by adding each one as a new layer with the experimental tool I have built. I think that semi-validates my half-understanding that there is some compression happening in the background but I am happy to be wrong here.

So go-containerregistry will compress, but not archive the layer. The mime type it sets by default is tar+gzip, but it's up to you to actually put these bytes into a tar and extract them from a tar when you call "Uncompressed".

I think we have two choices:

Keep things the way they are (one object per layer, raw yaml bytes without tar-ing). Change the mime/media type of the layer. You can do this with a PR I just sent to go-containerregistry: google/go-containerregistry@071a121

Tar files up when you put them in the layer, and keep the mime/media type the same. You can do this with https://golang.org/pkg/archive/tar/#NewReader

cc @jonjohnsonjr, the resident OCI spec expert.

This is excellent context that I didn't have so thanks for sharing! Based on your description, to me the latter option makes the most sense because it seems like a waste of space to store uncompressed files in a registry. I will add a note to the contract that the layers must be tar'ed.

vdemeester · 2020-10-15T14:21:46Z

pkg/remote/oci/resolver.go

+	KindAnnotation       = "dev.tekton.image.kind"
+	APIVersionAnnotation = "dev.tekton.image.apiVersion"
+	TitleAnnotation      = "dev.tekton.image.name"
+	MaximumBundleObjects = 10


Is it documented somewhere that we limit to 10 the content of a bundle ?

Yup. It is spelled out in the contract: https://github.com/tektoncd/pipeline/pull/3142/files#diff-1dfbd644a9243c47edaba1835ff18e89bde7cb3b25b475356d5827d1bf8bbea9R20

Ah right, make sense. We can change this later on if we need 👍

vdemeester · 2020-10-15T17:20:43Z

/lgtm
/meow

tekton-robot · 2020-10-15T17:20:44Z

@vdemeester:

In response to this:

/lgtm
/meow

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.

pierretasci · 2020-10-15T18:27:54Z

/retest

pritidesai · 2020-10-15T19:20:15Z

@pierretasci @vdemeester looks like this has been failing with the same error:

TestTektonBundlesUsingRegularImage: init_test.go:131: Create namespace arendelle-rkgds to deploy to
    TestTektonBundlesUsingRegularImage: init_test.go:147: Verify SA "default" is created in namespace "arendelle-rkgds"
    TestTektonBundlesUsingRegularImage: tektonbundles_test.go:378: Failed to create image. Pod logs are: 
        Getting image source signatures
        time="2020-10-15T18:42:36Z" level=fatal msg="Error trying to reuse blob sha256:98899d80a497fc980938a2dfb0fb37f537262aec96201c52d4246619a60af9b8 at destination: error pinging docker registry registry.arendelle-rkgds.svc.cluster.local:5000: Get http://registry.arendelle-rkgds.svc.cluster.local:5000/v2/: dial tcp 10.91.244.92:5000: connect: connection refused"

pierretasci · 2020-10-15T19:48:14Z

@pierretasci @vdemeester looks like this has been failing with the same error:

TestTektonBundlesUsingRegularImage: init_test.go:131: Create namespace arendelle-rkgds to deploy to
    TestTektonBundlesUsingRegularImage: init_test.go:147: Verify SA "default" is created in namespace "arendelle-rkgds"
    TestTektonBundlesUsingRegularImage: tektonbundles_test.go:378: Failed to create image. Pod logs are: 
        Getting image source signatures
        time="2020-10-15T18:42:36Z" level=fatal msg="Error trying to reuse blob sha256:98899d80a497fc980938a2dfb0fb37f537262aec96201c52d4246619a60af9b8 at destination: error pinging docker registry registry.arendelle-rkgds.svc.cluster.local:5000: Get http://registry.arendelle-rkgds.svc.cluster.local:5000/v2/: dial tcp 10.91.244.92:5000: connect: connection refused"

Yeah I am trying to figure out why this is failing in the GKE cluster but not locally. I think there is a timing issue happening here but I can't be sure. What I do know is that skopeo is not behaving the same locally as it does remotely.

pierretasci · 2020-10-15T19:48:47Z

@pierretasci @vdemeester looks like this has been failing with the same error:

TestTektonBundlesUsingRegularImage: init_test.go:131: Create namespace arendelle-rkgds to deploy to
    TestTektonBundlesUsingRegularImage: init_test.go:147: Verify SA "default" is created in namespace "arendelle-rkgds"
    TestTektonBundlesUsingRegularImage: tektonbundles_test.go:378: Failed to create image. Pod logs are: 
        Getting image source signatures
        time="2020-10-15T18:42:36Z" level=fatal msg="Error trying to reuse blob sha256:98899d80a497fc980938a2dfb0fb37f537262aec96201c52d4246619a60af9b8 at destination: error pinging docker registry registry.arendelle-rkgds.svc.cluster.local:5000: Get http://registry.arendelle-rkgds.svc.cluster.local:5000/v2/: dial tcp 10.91.244.92:5000: connect: connection refused"

Yeah I am trying to figure out why this is failing in the GKE cluster but not locally. I think there is a timing issue happening here but I can't be sure. What I do know is that skopeo is not behaving the same locally as it does remotely.

Worse yet, it always succeeds the first time but fails the second time.

tekton-robot · 2020-10-15T19:51:04Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
internal/builder/v1beta1/pipeline.go	85.7%	86.1%	0.4

pierretasci · 2020-10-15T20:24:28Z

/retest

tekton-robot · 2020-10-15T21:22:07Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
internal/builder/v1beta1/pipeline.go	85.7%	86.1%	0.4

tekton-robot · 2020-10-16T17:36:22Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
internal/builder/v1beta1/pipeline.go	85.7%	86.1%	0.4

tekton-robot · 2020-10-16T19:16:39Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
internal/builder/v1beta1/pipeline.go	85.7%	86.1%	0.4

tekton-robot · 2020-10-16T21:23:36Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
internal/builder/v1beta1/pipeline.go	85.7%	86.1%	0.4

pierretasci · 2020-10-16T23:58:32Z

/test all

tekton-robot · 2020-10-17T00:02:50Z

The following is the coverage report on the affected files.
Say /test pull-tekton-pipeline-go-coverage to re-run this coverage report

File	Old Coverage	New Coverage	Delta
internal/builder/v1beta1/pipeline.go	85.7%	86.1%	0.4

vdemeester · 2020-10-21T13:59:27Z

/lgtm
I'll start working on the follow-ups 😉

pierretasci · 2020-10-21T16:40:08Z

/retest

pierretasci · 2020-10-22T00:08:31Z

/retest

mattmoor · 2020-10-22T02:45:09Z

This regressed Tekton's ability to run e2e tests against clusters without the standard .cluster.local suffix.

I opened #3429 to track.

tekton-robot added the release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. label Aug 26, 2020

tekton-robot requested review from dlorenc and vdemeester August 26, 2020 20:15

tekton-robot added size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Aug 26, 2020

tekton-robot added kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Aug 27, 2020

imjasonh reviewed Aug 28, 2020

View reviewed changes

pierretasci force-pushed the tekton-bundles branch from dfa74e6 to cb29b26 Compare August 28, 2020 14:26

pierretasci force-pushed the tekton-bundles branch from cb29b26 to 2771338 Compare August 28, 2020 23:40

pierretasci commented Aug 28, 2020

View reviewed changes

pierretasci force-pushed the tekton-bundles branch from 2771338 to fefc99c Compare August 31, 2020 16:46

dlorenc reviewed Sep 1, 2020

View reviewed changes

pierretasci force-pushed the tekton-bundles branch from fefc99c to 005e946 Compare September 1, 2020 16:35

vdemeester reviewed Oct 15, 2020

View reviewed changes

tekton-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 15, 2020

pierretasci force-pushed the tekton-bundles branch from c439a94 to 3ad7f1d Compare October 15, 2020 19:47

tekton-robot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 15, 2020

pierretasci force-pushed the tekton-bundles branch from 3ad7f1d to 580e1fb Compare October 15, 2020 21:17

pierretasci force-pushed the tekton-bundles branch from 580e1fb to 6f4a37e Compare October 16, 2020 17:32

pierretasci force-pushed the tekton-bundles branch from 6f4a37e to 4aa3a64 Compare October 16, 2020 19:12

Add docs, api, and reconciler support for Tekton bundles.

c2be58e

pierretasci force-pushed the tekton-bundles branch from 4aa3a64 to c2be58e Compare October 16, 2020 21:18

tekton-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 21, 2020

tekton-robot merged commit 7e376a0 into tektoncd:master Oct 22, 2020

pritidesai mentioned this pull request Nov 5, 2020

Put Tekton OCI bundles behind a feature flags 🎏 #3492

Merged

4 tasks

Introduces Tekton bundles: take 2 #3142

Introduces Tekton bundles: take 2 #3142

Conversation

pierretasci commented Aug 26, 2020 • edited by pritidesai Loading

Changes

Submitter Checklist

Release Notes

linux-foundation-easycla bot commented Aug 26, 2020 • edited Loading

tekton-robot commented Aug 26, 2020

pritidesai commented Aug 27, 2020

tekton-robot commented Aug 27, 2020

bobcatfish commented Aug 27, 2020

tekton-robot commented Aug 27, 2020

pritidesai commented Aug 28, 2020

imjasonh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

imjasonh commented Aug 28, 2020

pierretasci commented Aug 28, 2020

tekton-robot commented Aug 28, 2020

pierretasci left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tekton-robot commented Aug 28, 2020

tekton-robot commented Aug 31, 2020

imjasonh commented Sep 1, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

vdemeester commented Oct 15, 2020

tekton-robot commented Oct 15, 2020

pierretasci commented Oct 15, 2020

pritidesai commented Oct 15, 2020

pierretasci commented Oct 15, 2020

pierretasci commented Oct 15, 2020

tekton-robot commented Oct 15, 2020

pierretasci commented Oct 15, 2020

tekton-robot commented Oct 15, 2020

tekton-robot commented Oct 16, 2020

tekton-robot commented Oct 16, 2020

tekton-robot commented Oct 16, 2020

pierretasci commented Oct 16, 2020

tekton-robot commented Oct 17, 2020

vdemeester commented Oct 21, 2020

pierretasci commented Oct 21, 2020

pierretasci commented Oct 22, 2020

mattmoor commented Oct 22, 2020

pierretasci commented Aug 26, 2020 •

edited by pritidesai

Loading

linux-foundation-easycla bot commented Aug 26, 2020 •

edited

Loading