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

Update to upstream v2.39.1 #195

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

aelkiss
Copy link
Member

@aelkiss aelkiss commented Apr 24, 2024

No description provided.

@aelkiss aelkiss changed the base branch from master to upstream-v2.39.1 April 24, 2024 19:48
@aelkiss
Copy link
Member Author

aelkiss commented Apr 25, 2024

The dependency review action failed here and says it's not supported, so we should remove it from our tests.yml.

@aelkiss
Copy link
Member Author

aelkiss commented May 2, 2024

I tested this and it's working (see my update on https://hathitrust.atlassian.net/issues/TTO-203) but I'm not sure what the best thing to do is regarding deploying this.

I'm kind of inclined to discard what we have on the master branch here and just reset that to upstream master. Then, we can manage future updates by applying our patches in a branch against upstream tagged releases, and then just tagging that rather than merging it to any particular branch. Not really sure if there are some best practices/patterns out there for dealing with this kind of pattern. I've had to do this kind of thing (long-term fork with our patches) a couple times, and it's been frustrating both times -- as opposed to building debian or redhat packages or something, where there's a well-documented and widely-used pattern for applying local patches to an upstream release.

@aelkiss
Copy link
Member Author

aelkiss commented May 6, 2024

Going to tag this branch, close the PR, and manually set main to this.

@aelkiss aelkiss closed this May 6, 2024
@aelkiss
Copy link
Member Author

aelkiss commented May 6, 2024

It also looks like the upstream auth proxy now supports headers for additional claims: dexidp@366e53c
so we may be able to use that directly rather than needing to maintain a fork. I'll look into that in the future.

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.

1 participant