Explicitly set the image pull policy to IfNotPresent

[carbonin]

Similar to ManageIQ/manageiq#20279

[miq-bot]

Checked commit carbonin@2080ae5 with ruby 2.5.7, rubocop 0.69.0, haml-lint 0.28.0, and yamllint
2 files checked, 1 offense detected

**

• 💣 💥 🔥 🚒 - Linter/Yaml - missing config files

[simaishi]

Backported without changes to manageiq-operator/deploy/olm-catalog/manageiq-operator/0.0.1/manageiq-operator.v0.0.1.clusterserviceversion.yaml as #549 changed the values for jansa branch.

Jansa backport details:

$ git log -1
commit e17540ffa3afc30ef2f1ceaf69a6b6d572ab90ef
Author: Brandon Dunne <[email protected]>
Date:   Tue Jun 16 12:04:22 2020 -0400

    Merge pull request #545 from carbonin/explicitly_set_pull_policy

    Explicitly set the image pull policy to IfNotPresent

    (cherry picked from commit 938a7cde01483cf4a11fde1fd28dc73df2f20358)

[carbonin]

So for this I feel like we're in a weird state. This PR used IfNotPresent because at this time the file was pinned to a released version (granted, one that didn't exist).

But when we moved to jansa-latest I feel like it might make more sense to use Always as that's an intentionally moving tag.

That all said, should we be pinning the operator deploy to a particular release? For example, when jansa-1 is tagged, should we use that? Then we would go back to IfNotPresent.

I think we need to make a decision on what tag should be in this file for each of our branches before we can really call this resolved. @Fryguy @bdunne ?

[bdunne]

Totally agree, we should either pull "always" if using the "latest" tag or pull "ifNotPresent" with a release tag. I don't think anything else makes sense.

I think it's fine for a release branch to point to a release tag and the tip of the branch can be ahead of the release, README.md already has instructions for changing it for development purposes.

[simaishi]

So the jansa branch is good as is for now, right? "latest-jansa" with "Always" is what it currently has.

I did discuss with @Fryguy about possibly changing to an actual release tag only for tags, which is what we do with Gemfile.

[bdunne]

So the jansa branch is good as is for now, right? "latest-jansa" with "Always" is what it currently has.

I think it's wrong now, but I think we need to make a decision about the tags first.

Also, it's not consistent within the branch. I marked #539 as jansa/yes? to ensure tests verify consistency.

[simaishi]

#549 is a direct PR to jansa branch and that was merged later than this PR. So when I backported this PR, I made sure I don't override #549.

I'm confused and not sure what the right values are at this point, so please create a PR to jansa branch as needed.

EDIT: never mind... I thought we were talking about a different yaml file, not operator.yaml...