Add support for creating helm packages without needing the helm binary #72
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Paul Czarkowski <username.taken@gmail.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like the idea of adding chart packaging. 👍
Code for indexing and uploading is in the releaser package. The Cobra commands delegate to that code. Here, you implement everything within the command. That's inconsistent. I'd suggest you match the existing style. I'd be nice to have tests as well.
Signed-off-by: Paul Czarkowski <username.taken@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Reinhard Nägele <unguiculus@gmail.com>
|
@unguiculus I'm not sure I see the benefit? A user wanting to package a previous release based on a commit can check out that commit, do the package, then check out main again. I feel like adding the need to run |
|
oh no @davidkarlsen your suggested change that I just hit "accept suggestion" didn't have a DCO 💀 |
Co-authored-by: David J. M. Karlsen <david@davidkarlsen.com> Signed-off-by: Paul Czarkowski <username.taken@gmail.com>
|
Are we good to move forward with this? Do we need another reviewer to approve ? @scottrigby |
|
Hey @paulczar i'm going to try to look over this today |
| If you wish to use advanced packaging options such as creating signed | ||
| packages or updating chart dependencies please use "helm package" instead.`, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like we could pass any helm package options the way you wrote CreatePackages()?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not suggesting we need to add that in this PR, but wondering if we could make it easy to encourage users to automate signing their packages. Would love to see that happen more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps, but I didn't have the time to test a bunch of that stuff, so I thought for the first PR we should just focus on the most basic use case.
Signed-off-by: Paul Czarkowski username.taken@gmail.com