[release tool] Integrate release and hashrelease logic #9140
Conversation
marvin-tigera
added
release-note-required
caseydavenport
force-pushed
the
casey-add-release
branch
from
0c68b6a
to
8867f3d
Compare
caseydavenport
changed the title
caseydavenport
added
docs-not-required
marvin-tigera
removed
the
release-note-required
caseydavenport
force-pushed
the
casey-add-release
branch
3 times, most recently
from
383fc3f
to
a97a86d
Compare
caseydavenport
force-pushed
the
casey-add-release
branch
from
cbf9d3f
to
b7dfe38
Compare
release/internal/version/version.go
Outdated
| // is the _next_ (currently unreleased) product version. | ||
| func IsDevVersion(ver, devTag string) bool { | ||
| v := Version(ver) | ||
| pattern := fmt.Sprintf(`^v\d+\.\d+\.\d+(-\d+\.\d+)?-%s-\d+-g[0-9a-f]{12}(-dirty)?$`, devTag) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this should allow interpreting v3.15.0-12-gfd40f1838223 as a dev tag as well
| pattern := fmt.Sprintf(`^v\d+\.\d+\.\d+(-\d+\.\d+)?-%s-\d+-g[0-9a-f]{12}(-dirty)?$`, devTag) | |
| pattern := fmt.Sprintf(`^v\d+\.\d+\.\d+(-\d+\.\d+)?(-%s)?-\d+-g[0-9a-f]{12}(-dirty)?$`, devTag) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why should this return true if the version string doesn't include the devTag? I thought the entire purpose of this function was to tell if the dev tag was present.
That said, this function is currently unused so I think it can be removed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah, it can be removed
This function was going based on a wrong assumption that all dev tags (non-official release) has the devTag 0.dev.
That is only the case for minor version releases (i.e. vX.Y.0-0.dev-n-g????????????); patch releases go based on the last release (i.e. vX.Y.Z-n-g????????????)
caseydavenport
force-pushed
the
casey-add-release
branch
from
2083711
to
1d85444
Compare
release/internal/version/version.go
Outdated
| // is the _next_ (currently unreleased) product version. | ||
| func IsDevVersion(ver, devTag string) bool { | ||
| v := Version(ver) | ||
| pattern := fmt.Sprintf(`^v\d+\.\d+\.\d+(-\d+\.\d+)?-%s-\d+-g[0-9a-f]{12}(-dirty)?$`, devTag) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah, it can be removed
This function was going based on a wrong assumption that all dev tags (non-official release) has the devTag 0.dev.
That is only the case for minor version releases (i.e. vX.Y.0-0.dev-n-g????????????); patch releases go based on the last release (i.e. vX.Y.Z-n-g????????????)
radTuti
changed the title
Description
Note that this DOES change the format of our hashreleases in order to better match the structure of artifacts produced by a real release. Notably, existing hashrelease structure looks like this:
The new format looks more like this:
The main differences being:
To handle this, there is some additional logic to copy files into the "legacy" structure so that both formats coexist. Once our CI tools are updated to use the new format, we can remove this redundancy.
Related issues/PRs
Todos
Release Note
Reminder for the reviewer
Make sure that this PR has the correct labels and milestone set.
Every PR needs one
docs-*label.docs-pr-required: This change requires a change to the documentation that has not been completed yet.docs-completed: This change has all necessary documentation completed.docs-not-required: This change has no user-facing impact and requires no docs.Every PR needs one
release-note-*label.release-note-required: This PR has user-facing changes. Most PRs should have this label.release-note-not-required: This PR has no user-facing changes.Other optional labels:
cherry-pick-candidate: This PR should be cherry-picked to an earlier release. For bug fixes only.needs-operator-pr: This PR is related to install and requires a corresponding change to the operator.