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

No longer need HostProcess specific build since containerd pr merged #163

Merged

Conversation

jsturtevant
Copy link
Contributor

Reason for PR:

Removes the HostProcess build as containerd/containerd#5131 has merged.

Issue Fixed:

Issue #

Requirements

  • Sqaush commits
  • Documentation
  • Tests

Notes:

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. label Aug 23, 2021
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Aug 23, 2021
@github-actions github-actions bot added the tide/merge-method-squash Denotes a PR that should be squashed by tide when it merges. label Aug 23, 2021
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. label Aug 23, 2021
@jsturtevant
Copy link
Contributor Author

/cc @marosset

@marosset
Copy link
Contributor

Can we just disable it for now?
I think we're going to want to be able to target dev branches for some work in the future.

@jsturtevant
Copy link
Contributor Author

I lean toward removing it to avoid confusion several months later when we revisit if the requirement for dev branches is required. This was really to fill a gap while we landed it across all of the moving parts. The less custom stuff we have the better IMO.

@marosset
Copy link
Contributor

Can we keep this around (but disabled) until the KEP to move HostProcess containers to beta gets reviewed (Sept 9 is the enhancement freeze)?
After the KEP review we'll have a much better idea what kinds of changes we'll be making for hcsshim and/or containerd and if those changes would justify keeping the forked builds around?

Copy link
Contributor

@marosset marosset left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

I spoke w/ @jsturtevant offline and we decided we'll just bring back the workflow if needed to keep the repo tidy.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 25, 2021
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: jsturtevant, marosset

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
  • OWNERS [jsturtevant,marosset]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 8b64605 into kubernetes-sigs:master Aug 25, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. tide/merge-method-squash Denotes a PR that should be squashed by tide when it merges.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants