Skip to content

Conversation

@klihub
Copy link
Contributor

@klihub klihub commented Nov 14, 2025

Bump OCI runtime tools and spec to v1.3.0.

Copy link
Contributor

@bart0sh bart0sh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

Copy link
Contributor

@marquiz marquiz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks @klihub

LGTM

Signed-off-by: Krisztian Litkey <krisztian.litkey@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Krisztian Litkey <krisztian.litkey@intel.com>
@klihub klihub force-pushed the devel/oci-runtime-spec-v1.3.0 branch from fb963c1 to 8ad6f3b Compare November 14, 2025 13:36
Copy link
Contributor

@elezar elezar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks @klihub.

Is this something that we need to "backport" to the v1.0.0 spec, or are the changes on main such that we can go ahead and just release v1.0.1?

@elezar elezar merged commit 1b24d96 into cncf-tags:main Nov 14, 2025
8 checks passed
@klihub
Copy link
Contributor Author

klihub commented Nov 14, 2025

Thanks @klihub.

Is this something that we need to "backport" to the v1.0.0 spec, or are the changes on main such that we can go ahead and just release v1.0.1?

@elezar Hmm, I think we don't need to. The only reason for this dependency bump in CDI is to make the necessary OCI Spec bits for the pending Linux net device and RDT monitoring PRs (#269, #292) available to CDI, so we could kick those PRs forward at will.

Even in the (highly theoretical) case that some downstream CDI consumer wanted to make a new release with CDI 1.0.0 and opencontainer/runtime-spec 1.3.0, I'm not sure if we really were forced to do a backport. A locally unresolveable compilation failure would arise downstream if somehow because of us some golang package would be forced in with depending on pre-1.3.0 OCI Spec and someone in the compiled sources would reference LinuxPids.Limit in the Spec. Then we'd hit the int64 vs. *int64 snafu.

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.

4 participants