bump etcd to 3.2.8 #16730
bump etcd to 3.2.8 #16730
Conversation
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
size/XXL
|
looks like the v2http package was renamed and is failing tests and build |
|
at least, the part we use for NewPeerHandler (etcd-io/etcd@v3.2.1...v3.2.8#diff-d7a47eb75475dba263540eb7f8456e50L152) |
|
the etcd bump commit is much bigger than the corresponding diff upstream... why is that? |
| @@ -56,8 +56,7 @@ preload-remote "github.com/openshift" "origin" "github.com/openshift" "origin" # | |||
| preload-remote "k8s.io" "kubernetes" "github.com/openshift" "kubernetes" | |||
| preload-remote "github.com/docker" "distribution" "github.com/openshift" "docker-distribution" | |||
| preload-remote "github.com/skynetservices" "skydns" "github.com/openshift" "skynetservices-skydns" | |||
| preload-remote "github.com/coreos" "etcd" "github.com/openshift" "coreos-etcd" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@smarterclayton why did we have this?
@soltysh do we no longer have any upstream commits?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we had those some time ago, but I've double checked the last bump and it was using official version (no carry commits). That's why I've decided to remove it from here. We'll bring it back when needed.
I'll double check, but I'm guessing we were missing some tests, or alike. |
I've double checked and the reasons the bump is bigger than the difference are as follows:
The tests are green on it, but I'll leave that up to you to decide @smarterclayton @liggitt @deads2k |
…from inside docker/distribution
|
@liggitt I've added that no-op bump commit for 3.2.1. With that in the actual 3.2.8 bump is a subset of etcd-io/etcd@v3.2.1...v3.2.8 |
|
We don't need them.
On Oct 11, 2017, at 1:12 PM, Maciej Szulik <[email protected]> wrote:
@liggitt <https://github.com/liggitt> I've added that no-op bump commit for
3.2.1. With that in the actual 3.2.8 bump is a subset of coreos/etcd@
v3.2.1...v3.2.8 <etcd-io/etcd@v3.2.1...v3.2.8>
I wonder though, why we vendor integration tests for etcd, any particular
reason, @smarterclayton <https://github.com/smarterclayton> ?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#16730 (comment)>,
or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABG_p0D1t5y0JclugFSKvPx5FazUtgf8ks5srPb8gaJpZM4Pw3WH>
.
|
|
/lgtm |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: liggitt, soltysh The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these OWNERS Files:
You can indicate your approval by writing |
openshift-merge-robot
added
the
approved
|
@soltysh: The following test failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR. 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. |
I'll do one another sweep through Godeps and I'll try removing them, in that case. |
was the content of Godeps.json in this PR the result of |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
3 similar comments
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/retest Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
Yes, that's why I think we somehow rely on them. But maybe we don't any more, I'm not sure how good godep is with figuring out those deps. |
|
Automatic merge from submit-queue. |
This bumps etcd and performs additional cleanups needed for our restoration to work properly.