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
[v13] - differentiate discovered resource names #30456
Conversation
8afcd63
to
e00c613
Compare
@jentfoo - this PR will require admin approval to merge due to its size. Consider breaking it up into a series smaller changes. |
I discussed this with @greedy52 in DM. We may not want to bring all these changes in the backport. He is going to help review and dissect this PR. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@GavinFrazar I don't think #28845 should be backported. Could you confirm?
As discussed with @jentfoo , at the mean time, I will try backport the refactoring change separately
yes please don't backport the renaming stuff edit: you can keep the changes from that PR, just remove edit: applied in 3c5e686 |
Thanks for removing the renaming. I think we can either merge this one, or #30461 + #30462 |
@greedy52 how about we merge #30461 and #30462 and then rebase this one onto those, just to pull the refactored fetchers into v13 (to make future backports easier). edit: or just close this one and i'll do that backport separately. I think it'll be easier to track the backports individually vs one combo backport |
* backport #28845 to branch/v13 * remove renaming of discovered resources for backport
3c5e686
to
2d3ec35
Compare
v13 Backport of PRs #28845 #30086 and #30054. These PR's build on each other and include refactoring that makes it best to backport them together.Backports fetcher refactoring from #28845 to branch/v13 without the renaming scheme applied