-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 42
Bump version to v1.0.0 #260
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
Conversation
94060c0
to
9dc896d
Compare
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ require ( | |||
github.com/spf13/cobra v1.6.0 | |||
gopkg.in/yaml.v2 v2.4.0 | |||
sigs.k8s.io/yaml v1.3.0 | |||
tags.cncf.io/container-device-interface v0.0.0 | |||
tags.cncf.io/container-device-interface v1.0.0 |
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.
More a comment on the release process: These are probably not strictly necessary since these CLIs are not generally consumed externally, but it's probably more consistent to have them.
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.
I was wondering the same. We anyway have the replace rule, so the version here has no effect, but if we bump it now, we should always go through the motions for consistency. @bart0sh So wouldn't leaving this at 0.0.0
be easier and less of a burden for maintenance ?
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.
done.
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ require ( | |||
github.com/spf13/cobra v1.6.0 | |||
gopkg.in/yaml.v2 v2.4.0 | |||
sigs.k8s.io/yaml v1.3.0 | |||
tags.cncf.io/container-device-interface v0.0.0 | |||
tags.cncf.io/container-device-interface v1.0.0 | |||
tags.cncf.io/container-device-interface/schema v0.0.0 |
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.
Question: Do we want to also specify a version for this?
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.
reverted
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.
brougth both changes back as reverting them resulted in CI failures: https://github.com/cncf-tags/container-device-interface/actions/runs/13724737021
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.
Minor comments -- more related to the release process and not blockers.
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.
I'm also fine with this, although I think it would be less of a maintenance burden to keep the in repo replaced version references always at v0.0.0
and never touch them. Otherwise, we always need to remember to bump them for consistency, even if this has absolutely no effect.
9dc896d
to
df41b6a
Compare
I've just realised that those changes were made by |
Signed-off-by: Ed Bartosh <[email protected]>
df41b6a
to
6784e01
Compare
Without them CI jobs failed. |
Merged. |
Ah, ok. Fair enough. |
I think if the changes are made by tooling then that's fine. I don't want us to have to manually update things in those modules. |
Ref: #259