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

Release 3.1.0 #175

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Mar 13, 2019
Merged

Release 3.1.0 #175

merged 3 commits into from
Mar 13, 2019

Conversation

lucab
Copy link
Contributor

@lucab lucab commented Mar 13, 2019

coreos-metadata 3.1.0:

  • provider: add boot check-in on azure and packet
  • azure: hardcode fallback for wireserver endpoint
  • providers/packet: minor code cleanup
  • cargo: update most dependencies to latest versions

This bumps version minor component, after the introduction of a new
feature (boot check-in).
@lucab
Copy link
Contributor Author

lucab commented Mar 13, 2019

/cc @jlebon for a green stamp

Copy link
Member

@jlebon jlebon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM!

@imcleod
Copy link

imcleod commented Mar 13, 2019

LGTM!

@ashcrow
Copy link
Member

ashcrow commented Mar 13, 2019

LGTM

@jlebon
Copy link
Member

jlebon commented Mar 13, 2019

So, this needs a final piece here for RHCOS/FCOS, which is the actual systemd unit that will replace the phone home service on CL. Should we include it in this repo?

@imcleod
Copy link

imcleod commented Mar 13, 2019

So, this needs a final piece here for RHCOS/FCOS, which is the actual systemd unit that will replace the phone home service on CL. Should we include it in this repo?

My ideal case, which may be mis-informed, is that once this update goes in, provided azure is identified as the oem id on the kernel command line, all the needfuls will happen on a *COS system to keep in online in Azure. Likewise for packet.

If that means including the unit file, then I think my answer is yes.

@ashcrow
Copy link
Member

ashcrow commented Mar 13, 2019

If that means including the unit file, then I think my answer is yes.

I agree.

@jlebon
Copy link
Member

jlebon commented Mar 13, 2019

Yeah, definitely no doubt we need a systemd unit somewhere. My question was more about where. :) It'd be nice to keep it here, but I'd like to confirm the interactions with CL since we probably don't want to change how check-in works there at this point. (Or do we?)

@lucab
Copy link
Contributor Author

lucab commented Mar 13, 2019

@jlebon I think that the service file could live here (next to the existing one). However I think that right now it is quicker to tag this, add the unit via RPM packaging, test everything and then move the unit to here once everything is confirmed ok. If no objections, I'll proceed with the release.

@jlebon
Copy link
Member

jlebon commented Mar 13, 2019

Sure, WFM!

@lucab lucab merged commit 91b0dd0 into coreos:master Mar 13, 2019
@lucab lucab deleted the release-3.1.0 branch March 13, 2019 16:35
@lucab lucab restored the release-3.1.0 branch March 13, 2019 16:35
@lucab lucab deleted the release-3.1.0 branch June 22, 2020 10:48
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants