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

go get github.com/argoproj/argo > v.2.5.2 #3192

Closed
dcherman opened this issue Jun 8, 2020 · 3 comments
Closed

go get github.com/argoproj/argo > v.2.5.2 #3192

dcherman opened this issue Jun 8, 2020 · 3 comments
Milestone

Comments

@dcherman
Copy link
Member

dcherman commented Jun 8, 2020

Summary

I'm not sure whether or not this is a bug or me doing something wrong, so I'm reporting this as a question first. Looking at https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/argoproj/argo, there are no versions newer than v2.5.2 listed versions listed. Trying to force it by using curl against https://sum.golang.org results in invalid version: +incompatible suffix not allowed: module contains a go.mod file, so semantic import versioning is required. Go modules were introduced in v2.6.0 , so that suggests that something might not be set up quite right. Is that a fair assessment (an actual bug), or am I doing something incorrect when trying to run go get for a newer version of argo?

Motivation

Using newer versions of Argo programatically with Golang.

@alexec
Copy link
Contributor

alexec commented Jun 8, 2020

This does not work because we move to Gomodules as of v2.6.0. Unfortunately, the way that Gomodules works (which is frankly bizarre) requires you either create a branch or a subdirectory for v2. So we cannot fix this. You should be able to use @master or similar.

@alexec alexec added the wontfix label Jun 8, 2020
@dcherman
Copy link
Member Author

Should we re-label this with a v3.0 tag since you mentioned that it would be considered during the meeting yesterday?

@alexec alexec added this to the v3.0 milestone Jun 18, 2020
@blkperl
Copy link
Contributor

blkperl commented Jun 23, 2020

@dcherman The current workaround is described here:

#2602 (comment)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants