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

Bug 1812920: Adding nodeSelector to operator deployment #263

Conversation

ewolinetz
Copy link
Contributor

Manual cherry-pick of #254
Adds a "kubernetes.io/os": "linux" node selector for the ClusterLoggingOperator deployment

Addresses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812920

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@ewolinetz: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1812920, which is invalid:

  • expected the bug to target the "4.4.0" release, but it targets "4.4.z" instead
  • expected dependent Bugzilla bug 1808986 to be in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE_PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), but it is POST instead

Comment /bugzilla refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Bugzilla bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

In response to this:

[release-4.4] Bug 1812920: Adding nodeSelector to operator deployment

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.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added bugzilla/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. labels Mar 12, 2020
@ewolinetz ewolinetz changed the title [release-4.4] Bug 1812920: Adding nodeSelector to operator deployment Bug 1812920: Adding nodeSelector to operator deployment Mar 12, 2020
@ewolinetz
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

@ewolinetz
Copy link
Contributor Author

/bugzilla refresh

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@ewolinetz: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1812920, which is invalid:

  • expected the bug to target the "4.4.0" release, but it targets "4.4.z" instead

Comment /bugzilla refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Bugzilla bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

In response to this:

/bugzilla refresh

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.

@ewolinetz
Copy link
Contributor Author

/bugzilla refresh

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. label Mar 26, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@ewolinetz: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1812920, which is valid. The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

6 validation(s) were run on this bug
  • bug is open, matching expected state (open)
  • bug target release (4.4.0) matches configured target release for branch (4.4.0)
  • bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, ON_DEV, POST, POST)
  • dependent bug Bugzilla bug 1808986 is in the state VERIFIED, which is one of the valid states (VERIFIED, RELEASE_PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA))
  • dependent Bugzilla bug 1808986 targets the "4.5.0" release, matching the expected (4.5.0) release
  • bug has dependents

In response to this:

/bugzilla refresh

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.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the bugzilla/invalid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is invalid for the branch this PR is targeting. label Mar 26, 2020
@jcantrill
Copy link
Contributor

/approve

@jcantrill
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Mar 26, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ewolinetz, jcantrill

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 [ewolinetz,jcantrill]

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

@crawford crawford added the cherry-pick-approved Indicates a cherry-pick PR into a release branch has been approved by the release branch manager. label Apr 3, 2020
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit dccf649 into openshift:release-4.4 Apr 3, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@ewolinetz: Some pull requests linked via external trackers have merged: openshift/elasticsearch-operator#263. The following pull requests linked via external trackers have not merged:

In response to this:

Bug 1812920: Adding nodeSelector to operator deployment

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.

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. bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. cherry-pick-approved Indicates a cherry-pick PR into a release branch has been approved by the release branch manager. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. release/4.4 size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants