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

[v0.59] Bump c/common to v0.59.1, then to v0.59.2-dev #2036

Merged

Conversation

TomSweeneyRedHat
Copy link
Member

Bumping to ready for the Podman v5.1.1 release. This change will put Windows-related fixes in place.

As the title says.  In preparation for Podman v5.1.1

Signed-off-by: tomsweeneyredhat <[email protected]>
As the title says, bumping to the 0.59.2-dev version for
further development.

Signed-off-by: tomsweeneyredhat <[email protected]>
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jun 3, 2024

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: TomSweeneyRedHat

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

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved label Jun 3, 2024
@TomSweeneyRedHat
Copy link
Member Author

@Luap99 and @mheon PTAL

@rhatdan
Copy link
Member

rhatdan commented Jun 3, 2024

There are a couple of changes in containers/storage, Are we going to catch these?

@Luap99
Copy link
Member

Luap99 commented Jun 3, 2024

There are a couple of changes in containers/storage, Are we going to catch these?

Nobody said anything about creating a new c/storage in the meeting so no.

@TomSweeneyRedHat Looks like your Signed-off-by line is off as it does not include the real name. Not really a blocker for me but I doubt it is intentional.

@TomSweeneyRedHat
Copy link
Member Author

@Luap99 I'm confused. What's the sign-off line not showing vs what you would expect? I'm seeing Signed-off-by: tomsweeneyredhat <[email protected]>. That looks consistent with my Nov 8, 2018 initial PR here. I have had to jiggle Git settings recently, I'm just not sure what's outta whack or what I screwed up? Is it better to have name = Tom Sweeney in my .gitconfig vs name = tomsweeneyredhat?

@Luap99
Copy link
Member

Luap99 commented Jun 3, 2024

@Luap99 I'm confused. What's the sign-off line not showing vs what you would expect? I'm seeing Signed-off-by: tomsweeneyredhat <[email protected]>. That looks consistent with my Nov 8, 2018 initial PR here. I have had to jiggle Git settings recently, I'm just not sure what's outta whack or what I screwed up? Is it better to have name = Tom Sweeney in my .gitconfig vs name = tomsweeneyredhat?

Well per the rules the name must be your real name, https://github.com/containers/podman/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#sign-your-prs

Use your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.)

I know this isn't enforced at all (including by me, I just noticed this by accident) and oh well we know your name anyway but I think at least we maintainers should follow the rules.

And yes your git name should be your actual name not the github nick.

@TomSweeneyRedHat
Copy link
Member Author

@mheon @Luap99 can this be merged?

@mheon
Copy link
Member

mheon commented Jun 4, 2024

I have no objection. LGTM
@Luap99 You OK with merging?

@Luap99
Copy link
Member

Luap99 commented Jun 4, 2024

/lgtm

Sure as I said this name thing is not a blocker for me, just inconsistent but given we merged things like this before and it doesn't make difference anyway.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm label Jun 4, 2024
@openshift-merge-bot openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit 067c28d into containers:v0.59 Jun 4, 2024
10 checks passed
@TomSweeneyRedHat TomSweeneyRedHat deleted the dev/tsweeney/v0.59.1 branch June 4, 2024 13:49
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants