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
OCPBUGS-33351,OCPBUGS-22556,OCPCLOUD-2422: Update to kubernetes v1.29 #88
OCPBUGS-33351,OCPBUGS-22556,OCPCLOUD-2422: Update to kubernetes v1.29 #88
Conversation
Hi @cloud-team-rebase-bot[bot]. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a openshift member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
29fe71d
to
bd5a44d
Compare
bd5a44d
to
a98bc3d
Compare
a98bc3d
to
325bb01
Compare
325bb01
to
7cab664
Compare
7cab664
to
96c89ca
Compare
96c89ca
to
286bca1
Compare
Here we'll need to drop 6067ccd ( Upstream instead decided to allow us to fix this by opting into a feature introduced with a different PR (kubernetes-sigs#4891), which recently merged. That PR is being brought in by this rebase, but we must opt into it by setting |
@damdo are you going to fix this up, or is the card still open? |
@elmiko Not sure who owns/owned this rebase for 4.15 |
286bca1
to
b5c561a
Compare
/test commitchecker |
@damdo: The specified target(s) for
The following commands are available to trigger optional jobs:
Use In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
/test verify-git-history |
/test verify-commits |
/label rebase/manual |
b5c561a
to
2f79d52
Compare
@theobarberbany: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-22556, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state. 3 validation(s) were run on this bug
Requesting review from QA contact: This pull request references OCPCLOUD-2422 which is a valid jira issue. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
@nrb we will want to run the payload tests to exercise and rehearse the upgrade story, considering that's the pain point that the previous health check carry was addressing, and that the newer approach is supposed to take the place of. Thus launching some |
@damdo: trigger 1 job(s) for the /payload-(job|aggregate) command
See details on https://pr-payload-tests.ci.openshift.org/runs/ci/db266e30-b564-11ee-8729-0d243ec58145-0 |
@nrb It looks like all payload upgrades have failed 😐 https://pr-payload-tests.ci.openshift.org/runs/ci/db266e30-b564-11ee-8729-0d243ec58145-0 (see |
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.
This commit is empty, can we drop it?
Makefile
Outdated
release-staging: | ||
ENABLE_GIT_COMMANDS=false IMAGE_REGISTRY=$(STAGING_REGISTRY) $(MAKE) build-images push-images | ||
|
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.
Do we use this, wondering if we need this change?
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.
Looks like it came in from upstream as I was cherry-picking our stuff onto the Makefile.
https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cloud-provider-azure/blob/master/Makefile#L390 is where it's defined and https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cloud-provider-azure/blob/master/cloudbuild.yaml#L22 is where it's used.
I'd say we should keep it to make future rebases easier, but I'm not overly attached to that idea, either.
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.
Yeah my point was more, I don't understand why our commit changes this part of the makefile, should it not just be adding the include?
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.
I think I see what I did; will fix.
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.
Fixed.
@nrb Had a chat with @xueqzhan which cleared up the air for us regarding the aggregated payload results. So I think I'm happy with this PR, bare @JoelSpeed comment |
86fdc83
to
532b643
Compare
@JoelSpeed Done. |
Signed-off-by: Nolan Brubaker <nolan@nbrubaker.com>
This fix should go in to the CCCMO, but carry this commit to enforce the default until OCPBUGS-24486 is addressed there. Signed-off-by: Nolan Brubaker <nolan@nbrubaker.com>
532b643
to
45890ca
Compare
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.
/approve
/lgtm
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: JoelSpeed 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:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
@cloud-team-rebase-bot[bot]: all tests passed! Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
@cloud-team-rebase-bot[bot]: Jira Issue OCPBUGS-22556: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged: Jira Issue OCPBUGS-22556 has been moved to the MODIFIED state. In response to this: Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
[ART PR BUILD NOTIFIER] This PR has been included in build ose-azure-cloud-controller-manager-container-v4.16.0-202401191549.p0.g4295526.assembly.stream for distgit ose-azure-cloud-controller-manager. |
[ART PR BUILD NOTIFIER] This PR has been included in build ose-azure-cloud-node-manager-container-v4.16.0-202401191549.p0.g4295526.assembly.stream for distgit ose-azure-cloud-node-manager. |
Fix included in accepted release 4.16.0-0.nightly-2024-01-21-092529 |
/retitle OCPBUGS-33351,OCPBUGS-22556,OCPCLOUD-2422: Update to kubernetes v1.29 |
@cloud-team-rebase-bot[bot]: Jira Issue OCPBUGS-33351: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged: Jira Issue OCPBUGS-33351 has been moved to the MODIFIED state. Jira Issue OCPBUGS-22556 is in an unrecognized state (Verified) and will not be moved to the MODIFIED state. In response to this: Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
No description provided.