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

updating k8s to 1.30 and go to 1.22.5 #158

Merged

Conversation

acornett21
Copy link
Contributor

@acornett21 acornett21 commented Aug 2, 2024

@acornett21 acornett21 requested a review from bcrochet August 2, 2024 22:22
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested a review from mrhillsman August 2, 2024 22:22
@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ endif
# Image URL to use all building/pushing image targets
IMG ?= $(IMAGE_TAG_BASE):$(RELEASE_TAG)
# ENVTEST_K8S_VERSION refers to the version of kubebuilder assets to be downloaded by envtest binary.
ENVTEST_K8S_VERSION = 1.29.0
ENVTEST_K8S_VERSION = 1.30.0
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For all of these... I'd like to see these turned into ?= assignments so that we can define them outside of the Makefile, to be able to test the versions in CI without having to actually create a PR to do it. Or even have a current/next type of deal so we can be testing both on a rolling basis. Just a though. Not necessarily relevant to this PR. 😄

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It looks like this might be the only one that does not have a ?= assignment.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That does look like the only one. I like the thought of what you are saying, the only caveat to doing this or that testing, is that most of these dependencies need to be in lock-step with one another to work properly. Sometimes there is variances, but usually not from what I've seen.

Copy link
Contributor

@bcrochet bcrochet 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 openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 6, 2024
@acornett21 acornett21 merged commit 969254d into redhat-openshift-ecosystem:main Aug 7, 2024
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants