upgrade to 7.5.187 #694
upgrade to 7.5.187 #694
Conversation
|
This should be built against the beta branch .187 is still EA. Edit: The beta branch hasn't been updated for a while. Would likely need all the Java fixes from master too. |
|
7.5.187 is currently only early access. |
I would suggest it is merged as latest only when Ubiquiti have formerly released it as the GA. |
Given it took about a month for the USG DNS issue to come to light and the recent release demotions, even flipping GA to latest immediately sounds risky (and ultimately leads to more of @jacobalberty's time being spent on issues here that are out of his control). |
|
.187 is now official. |
|
Will this get merged? |
|
@it-can I don't know when jacobalberty will be back, but can you edit your PR in-line with the above suggestions please? Ubiquiti removes the tag on the end of the version when it goes stable. Would let it get merged as soon as the maintainer sees it. |
Actually, that bug is only applicable when you run the controller on a unifi gateway console. It does not appear to be a risk for self hosted instances. |
What is the difference between abandoned and "offline for the past few weeks"? Internet is accessible just about anywhere on the planet. |
Please don't get upset/set expectations for this repo's owner. All Jacob did was create a a great Dockerfile. Jacob has no responsibility whatsoever to maintain this repo. TrueCharts, picking this repo, versus a way more maintained version such as the LinuxServer.io image could be considered a mistake, given this PR's situation. I have dozen of totally unmaintained repos here in Github. If someone else chooses to use one, that's on them if they're expecting updates. If you want, you could export your config and deploy up a new up-to-date instance of the controller, using a more maintained Docker image. Or even install directly, using a VM (this is exactly what I did). |
Unless you're a developer with vast experience with deploying containers on kubernetes. It might be best not to comment on decision making without even asking. LinuxServer.io uses S6 overlay, which is not well suited for kubernetes. It creates quite specific permission and, in some edgecases, performance issues on kubernetes. Running to the internet to start shouting on an upstream we use that we made a bad mistake, is bad form to begin with. A polite question towards us directly would've allowed us to clear this up without all sorts of accusitions being thrown towards both us AND @jacobalberty. This gets even worse by the fact that @jacobalberty has been one of the most used and best reviewed unifi-controller containers out there. Which has been rock solid for thousands of users for years by now. If people actually take their time to read through why this container is always slightly outdated, they would know that @jacobalberty is always very selective on when he merges an update. As there are a LOT of bad unifi versions out there. This (waiting a while to see feedback) is the same protocol used by Hostifi for example. Although Hostifi has the upside of having paid staff and active reporting/testing protocols in place. So in TLDR: On another note: This is not and has actually never been the case with software development. Downstreams always have a delay, either due to internal testing, protocols being followed, simple CI delays, QA waittimes or, simply, not having staff available to update things right away. To give an example: Just-about none of the packages on an Average TrueNAS SCALE installation is up-to-date with their upstream. They often wheren't even up-to-date on the release date or when BETA went in effect. This is normal. |
|
Holy shit, this escalated ...not so quickly. |
As I explained, I never got a memo about this "weeks ago". |
|
Thank you @therumbler for bringing the linuxserver.io image to my attention, it's always good to have options. The new Unifi Network Application images works great if you have your |
Luckily you've got it now somehow. |
|
To the ones that are approving this PR, have you actually, you know, tested it? |
As one who has approved the changes, the approvals here are based on code only. Not the overarching responsibility to test Unifi's software packages. The code is approved to the condition that it will update the containers appropriately to leverage the upstream 7.5.187 packages. Edit: And update the appropriate documentation on the front page with links. |
No they are just trying to hit that button to make the point across that they want to see the update pushed through. |
Check out the changes yourself. Tell me, if there is something hard to approve. |
That's exactly the point of testing. Ubiquiti breaks things ALL the time with just a "simple" version bump. |
Ah, ok. Go ahead and test it. Tell us how that worked for you. |
yes, the scope of this repo is reviewing changes to the dockerfile, not the changes to the actual unifi controller software btw. but ... considering that this PR is already a month old and a lot of people are apparently dependant on this image (according to the amount of approvals), i would suggest either moving this repo to an organization with more than one maintainer in the near future or forking the repo, building the image and pushing it to your own docker hub repo. |
Yes, I pulled the branch from @it-can. I built the image from @it-can's branch, ran it in Compose, and successfully imported my exported Unifi Application config. All worked as expected!
My apologies, @Ornias1993. I see how my wording could have been interpreted as critical of TrueCharts. Re-reading my post i see how this unintended interpretation could have been made. While I haven't used k8s professionally in almost 3 years (migrated from k8s to Nomad) I do know about S6. In the future I'll more carefully re-read my posts, as I truly did not intend to knock the amazing work TrueCharts has done. With kindness, |
No, the scope of every repo is to also ensure dependencies actually work correctly with the software.
Some more info on this: |
what? this repo creates a docker image created by a dockerfile, so again: the scope of this repo is reviewing changes to the dockerfile, of course this includes any dependencies needed to run the software inside the docker container, but this repo isnt about the unifi software. go to the unifi community if you have any issues with the software itself. |
Ofcoarse people shouldn't complain here about the unifi software, but it's pretty normal (and good) practice to verify the stability of dependencies (in this case: The unifi software) before accepting an update. You might not agree, but that is how every good project is ran: With more or less verification. (and yes, in the case of this project, Unifi software is a technical dependency of the container.) |
|
@oscar-b I have built locally and tested it. |
Taken from jacobalberty#694
|
For everybody want to test and don't want to build this on it's own, I created a fork and applied this changes. You can grab it at https://github.com/waja/docker-unifi/pkgs/container/unifi/151909544?tag=7.5.187 |
|
This PR is stale because it has been open 30 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 5 days. |
upgrade to 7.5.187