replace gcr.io/gke-release-staging to use k8s.gcr.io/cloud-provider-gcp #836
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
release-note-none
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
size/S
Signed-off-by: Carlos Panato <[email protected]>
| newName: gcr.io/gke-release-staging/gcp-compute-persistent-disk-csi-driver | ||
| newTag: "v1.2.1-rc1" | ||
| newName: k8s.gcr.io/cloud-provider-gcp/gcp-compute-persistent-disk-csi-driver | ||
| newTag: "v1.2.2" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Based on naming scheme I wasn't sure if these needed to correspond to versions listed in kubernetes/kubernetes.
But all I could find were testing manifests that listed a much older version, e.g. https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/release-1.19/test/e2e/testing-manifests/storage-csi/gce-pd/node_ds.yaml#L43
So I'm assuming this is fine
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These versions match what we're shipping with the managed driver in GKE, so it's probably good to keep them as you've written, ie this is fine.
The manifests in k/k are way out of date. The intent is to test that k/k hasn't broken the CSI interface rather than testing latest versions of PD CSI IIUC.
It's not clear to me that the work on putting the PD CSI driver in cloud-provider-gcp is going to mean we should remove the testing manifests from k/k or not?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes as part of that effort we'll remove the manifests from k/k
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
/approve |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: cpanato, mattcary, spiffxp 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 |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
| newName: gcr.io/gke-release-staging/gcp-compute-persistent-disk-csi-driver | ||
| newTag: "v1.2.1-rc1" | ||
| newName: k8s.gcr.io/cloud-provider-gcp/gcp-compute-persistent-disk-csi-driver | ||
| newTag: "v1.2.2" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes as part of that effort we'll remove the manifests from k/k
| @@ -4,8 +4,8 @@ metadata: | |||
| name: imagetag-gcepd-driver-prow-head | |||
| imageTag: | |||
| name: gke.gcr.io/gcp-compute-persistent-disk-csi-driver | |||
| newName: gcr.io/gke-release-staging/gcp-compute-persistent-disk-csi-driver | |||
| newTag: "latest" | |||
| newName: gcr.io/k8s-staging-cloud-provider-gcp/gcp-compute-persistent-disk-csi-driver | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we also change name and its source?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That would require changing the integration test code which I'd like to do in its own PR so it doesn't get buried---that sort of thing has had knock-on effects with random test pipelines breaking.
Since we are replacing the image in all overlays probably we should take advantage of doing that to change the placeholder name to something that is clearly a placeholder, which might reduce problems in the future.
What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup
What this PR does / why we need it:
Follow up #724
deprecate the
gcr.io/gke-release-stagingand use the images that is promoted to the k8s prod registry or use the images that are built in the staging project/assign @spiffxp @mattcary
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: