Add appVersion and version to CRD to match the structs. #1195
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
porridge
requested review from
alenkacz,
gerred,
kensipe,
nfnt and
zen-dog
as code owners
nfnt
reviewed
Dec 17, 2019
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is great, but I'd suggest to wait with this until the versioning KEP is being implemented. As an operator package is different from what is later deployed on a cluster, its metadata is defined somewhere else. This metadata already contains (optional) fields for version and appVersion.
alenkacz
approved these changes
Dec 18, 2019
ANeumann82
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 13, 2020
Signed-off-by: Andreas Neumann <aneumann@mesosphere.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What this PR does / why we need it:
The goal is to make CRDs and the api structs match.
I'm not sure whether this is the way to go - are these the fields that the
current ongoing "versioning" discussion is all about?
In that case perhaps we should instead remove these fields (and code which uses
them, if any) from the structs?
This is a baby-step towards #862.