Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 83
⚠ use bundle name and version instead of image in (cluster)extension status#679
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
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Jump to
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
Can we make this change on the
ClusterExtensionAPI without it being considered a breaking change to the resultant CRD?I can see an argument for not being concerned about this, but I know in the past we've talked about trying to adhere to CRD versioning standards even though we are in a v0/alpha state with this project where by semver breaking changes are allowed to happen. Is adhering to the idea of not making breaking changes to a CRD still something we want to focus on moving forward?
As an aside, I don't see this as a problem for the
ExtensionAPI as I don't think we have cut a release with that API available yet.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.
We could if we had to. We could add this field and deprecate the old one. I don't think it's worth it to go to the trouble in an alpha API that we'll likely drop in the next couple of months.
I suppose you could argue, "why make the change at all if we're planning to remove the API?". I'd say that:
ClusterExtensionis still more mature, so making this change there is essentially a preview for existing users ofClusterExtensionClusterExtensionandExtensionfunctionality aligned in the areas where there is no fundamental difference between the two.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.
Totally fair. I just wanted to explicitly call this out to make sure that we were making this breaking change as a conscious decision since we have intentionally tried to avoid those in the past, even on our alpha APIs.
I do think in general, we should err on the side of not making breaking changes due to potential side effect to the cluster/clients but I do understand that it should be okay since we are in an alpha state both as a project and for the APIs.