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

required csv fields #1096

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jun 13, 2023
Merged

required csv fields #1096

merged 5 commits into from
Jun 13, 2023

Conversation

pb82
Copy link
Collaborator

@pb82 pb82 commented Jun 9, 2023

Add the rest of the required CSV fields

operators.operatorframework.io/builder: operator-sdk-v1.22.2
operators.operatorframework.io/project_layout: go.kubebuilder.io/v3
repository: https://github.com/grafana-operator/grafana-operator
support: Red Hat
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

On this point, I've gotten RH internal messages asking whether this is officially a RH supported project.

Some customers are asking whether this is an officially supported operator for their deployment.
I've always given the answer "no". Since this operator is officially developed by a few RH employees, we say it is a RH project, however, there is no official support from RH.

Another issue, is that some customers have asked our RH consultants for changes to the operator to meet their requirements, as such, going through internal requests to try and get their feature request implemented.

I've always argued that this is not part of RH tracked work, and our engagement in this project, albeit as RH employees, is purely open source and not part of our assigned roles, as such, I've always referred such requests from RH customers to be directed through the community issues. Since we cannot guarantee that a customer request will be addressed in any time frame

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So, I'm not sure whether we should continue advertising support as "Red Hat" or perhaps phrase it differently to be less "engaging" maybe "Red Hat - Open Source Community"?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this is updated now

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is it? I'm still seeing Red Hat 🤔

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

sorry, looks like I pushed to the wrong location. This is fixed now.

@HVBE HVBE merged commit 91d73f2 into master Jun 13, 2023
9 checks passed
@HVBE HVBE deleted the required-csv-fields branch June 13, 2023 09:30
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.

None yet

3 participants