enhancement: Automated Downstream Operator SDK#471
enhancement: Automated Downstream Operator SDK#471jmrodri wants to merge 1 commit intoopenshift:masterfrom
Conversation
|
/unassign @joelanford @asmacdo @camilamacedo86 @shawn-hurley @fabianvf |
shawn-hurley
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How does the merge script work when we have multiple z-streams from both upstream (1.1.Z,1.2.Z etc) and downstream (4.6.Z, 4.7.Z). I think we need to clarify this in the proposal.
4223d7c to
fd5f9ea
Compare
|
@shawn-hurley @asmacdo @dhellmann can you please re-review, I've made some changes from others comments as well as the ones from this review. |
| Another goal is to add a script to make it easier for developers to bring in | ||
| upstream releases into the downstream. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In sdk we setup the env to run the tests against Kind. Maybe an end goal would have the sdk/upstream tests set up to be executed against OCP. PS. I am not sure if they will work without any adjustment. It might require some effort. See that we have if is KIND load the image : https://github.com/operator-framework/operator-sdk/blob/master/test/e2e-helm/e2e_helm_suite_test.go#L117-L121. So, we might need to do spend an effort here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1. Since SDK downstream will become a supported offering and need to denote version compatibility with OCP, adding tests against OCP sounds like a good idea and worth having it as a goal.
972e1a0 to
76b8ad6
Compare
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: jmrodri The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
Closing this PR since I've pivoted and completely rewrote the downstreaming enhancement. The comments in this PR will only confuse matters since the document has changed so much. |
No description provided.