Skip to content
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

Ignition spec bump #562

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 26, 2024
Merged

Ignition spec bump #562

merged 2 commits into from
Nov 26, 2024

Conversation

prestist
Copy link
Collaborator

@travier
Copy link
Member

travier commented Nov 22, 2024

Hum, it looks like you're trying to stabilize a lot of variants in this PR at the same time.

@travier
Copy link
Member

travier commented Nov 22, 2024

I had copied the entire template in the issue but we don't need to do it all.

We only need to bump the experimental versions.

@travier
Copy link
Member

travier commented Nov 22, 2024

So, I took another look at this and what I would do is to only bump ignition to 3.6-exp first in all the experimental config variants.

Then in #559, we would stabilise the base, fcos and 4.18 config variants on 3.5.0 and keep all of the other variants on the new exp base & fcos ones.

@prestist
Copy link
Collaborator Author

spoke with @travier ; dialing back changes to go into independent prs, #550 (comment) . You can see that this pr is simply an import of the latest ignition with its now stabilized 3.5, which resulted in some new docs, see second commit.

@prestist prestist marked this pull request as ready for review November 25, 2024 19:25
@prestist prestist changed the title WIP:Ignition spec bump Ignition spec bump Nov 25, 2024
@travier
Copy link
Member

travier commented Nov 26, 2024

I considered splitting the vendor part from the changes in the first commit but that would have made it non-atomic / harder to bissect while making it easier to distinct which changes were manual vs the vendor code.

But overall it's the same result so let's go with that as it's bissectable.

@travier
Copy link
Member

travier commented Nov 26, 2024

Hum, maybe we should move the specs that we are not going to stabilize directly to 3.6.0-exp in this one.

@travier travier self-requested a review November 26, 2024 13:32
@travier
Copy link
Member

travier commented Nov 26, 2024

Or we make a followup PR, that works as well.

@prestist
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Hum, maybe we should move the specs that we are not going to stabilize directly to 3.6.0-exp in this one.

Thats fair, I was thinking I would do that when adding the new base, which I assumed I would do with other sterilizations (fcos)

@prestist prestist merged commit 011bb0c into coreos:main Nov 26, 2024
7 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants