Rename build.dev -> shipwright.io

[imjasonh]

Changes

This renames references to the build.dev API group, replacing them with shipwright.io. This change updates code and docs, but doesn't modify anything in docs/proposals/.

This constitutes a breaking change for existing users, who will need to modify their Builds/BuildStrategies/BuildRuns to use the new API group. No other changes are expected to be needed. When upgrading, users should delete the old CRD types before installing the new ones, to avoid confusion (kubectl delete -f deploy/crds/).

Fixes #563

Submitter Checklist

• [y] Includes tests if functionality changed/was added
• [y] Includes docs if changes are user-facing
• [y] Release notes block has been filled in, or marked NONE

See the contributor guide
for details on coding conventions, github and prow interactions, and the code review process.

Release Notes

BREAKING: Rename API group from build.dev to shipwright.io

[zhangtbj]

👍

A quick question, how about the previous proposal doc, like: https://github.com/shipwright-io/build/blob/master/docs/proposals/buildstrategy-steps-resources.md

Do we need to sync too or just keep the original API name?

[imjasonh]

👍

A quick question, how about the previous proposal doc, like: https://github.com/shipwright-io/build/blob/master/docs/proposals/buildstrategy-steps-resources.md

Do we need to sync too or just keep the original API name?

I explicitly didn't want to update proposal docs, because I don't own them, and the historical context might be meaningful (and because, being non-user-facing docs, they're not urgently necessary to update). If you see a proposal that you think should be updated after this change please feel free.

[zhangtbj]

Good day @imjasonh ,

How about this PR, or do you need any help here? :)

[imjasonh]

Good day @imjasonh ,

How about this PR, or do you need any help here? :)

I believe this change works, believe it or not, but I'd love another pair of eyes on the changes to make sure I got everything.

Other than that, test flakes and (limited time to debug them) is currently blocking the merge. Any help there would be great, not just for this change, but also for #600 #607 etc

[sbose78]

Changes look fine to me. I think it's fine to keep the proposal docs as is for now. From your perspective @zhangtbj @qu1queee @SaschaSchwarze0 when would you want to this change to get merged and released?

[zhangtbj]

Cool thanks @imjasonh !

I will also take some time on these PRs. Will let you know once I have any update.

[zhangtbj]

Hi @sbose78 ,

It also looks for me, and we will help to solve the test failure first.

For us, it is better to get merged soon, we need time to do the migration work and UX integration work, it will take some time after this PR is accepted :)

[adambkaplan]

It looks like we have a real issue going on with the v1.20 test. The Conditions array seems to have duplicates:

          <[]*v1alpha1.Condition | len:6, cap:8>: [
              {
                  Type: "Succeeded",
                  Status: "False",
                  LastTransitionTime: {
                      Time: 1989-05-15T00:01:01.651387237Z,
                  },
                  Reason: "Failed",
                  Message: "ServiceAccount \"default\" not found",
              },
              {
                  Type: "Succeeded",
                  Status: "False",
                  LastTransitionTime: {
                      Time: 1989-05-15T00:01:01.651387237Z,
                  },
                  Reason: "Failed",
                  Message: "ServiceAccount \"default\" not found",
              },
              {
                  Type: "Succeeded",
                  Status: "False",
                  LastTransitionTime: {
                      Time: 1989-05-15T00:01:01.651387237Z,
                  },
                  Reason: "Failed",
                  Message: "ServiceAccount \"default\" not found",
              },
              {
                  Type: "Succeeded",
                  Status: "False",
                  LastTransitionTime: {
                      Time: 1989-05-15T00:01:01.651387237Z,
                  },
                  Reason: "Failed",
                  Message: "ServiceAccount \"default\" not found",
              },
              {
                  Type: "Succeeded",
                  Status: "False",
                  LastTransitionTime: {
                      Time: 1989-05-15T00:01:01.651387237Z,
                  },
                  Reason: "Failed",
                  Message: "ServiceAccount \"default\" not found",
              },
              {
                  Type: "Succeeded",
                  Status: "False",
                  LastTransitionTime: {
                      Time: 1989-05-15T00:01:01.651387237Z,
                  },
                  Reason: "Failed",
                  Message: "ServiceAccount \"default\" not found",
              },
          ]

[qu1queee]

@imjasonh pls rebase this one on top of master, it will help the tests while we removed the multiple k8s versions test.

[imjasonh]

@imjasonh pls rebase this one on top of master, it will help the tests while we removed the multiple k8s versions test.

This seems to have helped! 👍

I am a bit nervous that we may have found a genuine bug with v1.20 though... 🤔

[zhangtbj]

Hi,

Does anyone know if this PR was just ran the tests on v1.18.15?

[qu1queee]

@zhangtbj yes, same as we have been doing before.

@sbose78 thanks for asking, I think this one would be better if it can get merged after #610 . I will spend time today reviewing these PRs.

[qu1queee]

thanks for this!
/lgtm
/approve

[openshift-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: qu1queee

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:

• OWNERS [qu1queee]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment