-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 410
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
MCO-424: Drop machine-os-content
references
#3364
MCO-424: Drop machine-os-content
references
#3364
Conversation
machine-os-content
referencesmachine-os-content
references
OK we're passing our own CI here. I think we can likely do this, and then the actual removal would hinge on openshift/driver-toolkit#101 |
/test e2e-hypershift Wanted to check if this was actually added or not |
/test okd-scos-images |
Let's merge openshift/driver-toolkit#102 first, because this repository is the real logical owner of |
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh by commenting If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /lifecycle stale |
Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh by commenting If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /lifecycle rotten |
Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity. Reopen the issue by commenting /close |
@openshift-bot: Closed this PR. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
This was previously enabled (openshift#1048) and then disabled again (openshift#1084) because `oc` doesn't know how to handle multiple images with those labels in the release payload. We'll need to solve this eventually if we want to be able to ship multiple OS images in the payload (that's tracked in openshift#1047), but we don't need to block on this if we can remove the legacy `machine-os-content` at the same time. See also: openshift/driver-toolkit#101 See also: openshift/machine-config-operator#3364
While this is true, I think it will actually be better to leave driver-toolkit as the last thing holding the bag. We can merge this, and then do the driver-toolkit change and the change to openshift/os#1374 as the same time. |
@cgwalters: The following test failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
c78dbe1
to
a82a034
Compare
See discussion in openshift/os#1374 |
machine-os-content
referencesmachine-os-content
references
@cgwalters: This pull request references MCO-424 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the task to target the "4.15.0" version, but no target version was set. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
This was previously enabled (openshift#1048) and then disabled again (openshift#1084) because `oc` doesn't know how to handle multiple images with those labels in the release payload. We'll need to solve this eventually if we want to be able to ship multiple OS images in the payload (that's tracked in openshift#1047), but we don't need to block on this if we can remove the legacy `machine-os-content` at the same time. See also: openshift/driver-toolkit#101 See also: openshift/machine-config-operator#3364
OK yep, green for CI across the board here, and this is basically purely deleting dead code. Risk here is IMO quite low. |
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.
Reading through the context I think this should be safe to drop on our side. Offhand I don't think any non-CI covered paths (hypershift, IBM cloud, onceFrom etc.) uses this anymore as well
/lgtm
/hold
For QE verification in case we're missing something
@cgwalters: This pull request references MCO-424 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the task to target the "4.15.0" version, but no target version was set. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: cgwalters, travier, yuqi-zhang 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 |
In this case what would QE do that would not be covered by presubmits? |
I thought of it as they have a larger test suite compared to CI, but I guess that might not be relevant for this PR. Feel free to unhold if we believe this doesn't require additional testing |
Yes I think QE capacity is better focused on other things honestly (like #3865 ) At this point the technical debt from this dis-proportionally impacts the CoreOS team. But I also know if something breaks from this the first bug contact will be the MCO team as usual. Dunno, bottom line we can see if someone from the QE team says "yes there's some test we have which may be relevant" or not. We have a large complex system, in theory somehow maybe somehow this breaks scaleup from old bootimages for example, but I don't think that's likely. |
/hold cancel I'm convinced 👍 |
@cgwalters: This pull request references MCO-424 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the task to target the "4.15.0" version, but no target version was set. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
xref https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/blob/master/enhancements/ocp-coreos-layering/ocp-coreos-layering.md
This is part of https://issues.redhat.com/browse/MCO-392
Since we've landed the new format image usage in the latest nightly, it's time to try dropping it from our image references entirely.