-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 49
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
chore: clean up unused artifacts, add deprecated notices. #610
chore: clean up unused artifacts, add deprecated notices. #610
Conversation
A new image has been built to help with testing out this PR: To use this image run the following: cd $(mktemp -d)
git clone git@github.com:opendatahub-io/data-science-pipelines-operator.git
cd data-science-pipelines-operator/
git fetch origin pull/610/head
git checkout -b pullrequest 69fd88e012a02077bcb3a9e4d76ffc65dbe76d80
oc new-project opendatahub
make deploy IMG="quay.io/opendatahub/data-science-pipelines-operator:pr-610" More instructions here on how to deploy and test a Data Science Pipelines Application. |
api/v1alpha1/dspipeline_types.go
Outdated
// Default: true | ||
// Deprecated: v1 only, will be removed in the future. |
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.
hm, should we be bumping our API to v2alpha1 for DSP v2?
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.
also, depending on the answer to the above, we may want to say "v1alpha1" here. I think you mean "DSP v1" when you say "v1", but in this CRD API file, "v1" means a kubernetes API and not a version of the project. It could cause confusion.
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.
hm, should we be bumping our API to v2alpha1 for DSP v2?
This is something we should have probably considered way ahead of time. I think crd version conversion strategy is upto us to decide when we do it. I'm not sure what the standard practice is here, but I don't think we should update the version of the crd this close to release, it would be difficult to account for all edge cases we need to handle.
I updated v1 to say "DSP V1" however.
Change to PR detected. A new PR build was completed. |
/lgtm |
Signed-off-by: Humair Khan <HumairAK@users.noreply.github.com>
Change to PR detected. A new PR build was completed. |
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.
Changes lgtm, and since the CI checks also pass
/Approve
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: DharmitD 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 |
/lgtm |
Testing instructions: