-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 103
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
Add upstream deployment #104
Add upstream deployment #104
Conversation
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@ | |||
apiVersion: apiextensions.k8s.io/v1beta1 |
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.
Nit: Since the user on vanilla k8s will also install OLM
, should we follow the same directory layout? Right now, OLM has this layout deploy/upstream/manifests/{version}
?
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 we can follow our own layout as long as we document it.
For upstream, what we should we be doing is creating a CatalogSource
with Marketplace in it. Add it to the OLM repo along with a Subscription
so that we get installed automatically along with OLM. That way it is a one shot process. I am not saying this needs to be done now but can be done post 4.0.
e3ccb63
to
4fa52c0
Compare
serviceAccountName: marketplace-operator | ||
containers: | ||
- name: marketplace-operator | ||
image: quay.io/openshift/origin-operator-marketplace:latest |
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.
If you are saying that the upstream version is 0.1.0
then this would need to be tagged. So we should either remove the version from the directory layout or figure out a way to tag the image.
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.
If we don't care specifically about versioning, lets just remove it.
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 am fine with that for now. But I am guessing we would have to introduce versioning at some point for upstream.
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.
Let's cross that bridge when we get there.
-Add upstream deployment manifests -Update readme with new instructions -Remove references to installation through OLM
4fa52c0
to
f27633a
Compare
@aravindhp @tkashem Removed versioning, please take a look again. Thanks |
/lgtm |
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
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: aravindhp, kevinrizza 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 |
/test e2e-aws |
1 similar comment
/test e2e-aws |
No description provided.