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-ISSUE: Remove local manifests #208
NO-ISSUE: Remove local manifests #208
Conversation
Nothing in here is used. Instead, we use the manifests provided by the Cluster Storage Operator [1]. As a result there has been significant divergence with patches that are only present in the CSO manifests and, more significantly, a patch that is only present here (commit 660bbb7). Resolve the source of confusion by removing these manifests and updating the README to make it clear that the Cluster Storage Operator (CSO) is responsible for configuring this operator nowadays. [1] https://github.com/openshift/cluster-storage-operator/tree/master/assets/csidriveroperators/manila Signed-off-by: Stephen Finucane <stephenfin@redhat.com>
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh by commenting If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /lifecycle stale |
/remove-lifecycle stale |
/assign @jsafrane |
/retitle NO-ISSUE: Remove local manifests |
@stephenfin: This pull request explicitly references no 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. |
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 wonder if the reason is that the local manifest were used for deploying the operator during development... anyway, I also think we should remove them if there are not used.
Have you checked that both are functionally equivalent? For instance, I can see that 660bbb7 updated the manifest but I can't find a corresponding commit for CSO.
I opened openshift/cluster-storage-operator#412 to close this gap. That unmerged PR was the motivation for this one. |
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.
/lgtm
/approve
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: mandre, stephenfin 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 |
@stephenfin: 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. |
[ART PR BUILD NOTIFIER] This PR has been included in build csi-driver-manila-operator-container-v4.16.0-202401311812.p0.g5ec76de.assembly.stream for distgit csi-driver-manila-operator. |
Nothing in here is used. Instead, we use the manifests provided by the Cluster Storage Operator [1]. As a result there has been significant divergence with patches that are only present in the CSO manifests and, more significantly, a patch that is only present here (commit 660bbb7).
Resolve the source of confusion by removing these manifests and updating the README to make it clear that the Cluster Storage Operator (CSO) is responsible for configuring this operator nowadays.
[1] https://github.com/openshift/cluster-storage-operator/tree/master/assets/csidriveroperators/manila
Signed-off-by: Stephen Finucane stephenfin@redhat.com