-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14
Conversation
# Conflicts: # .gitignore # controllers/backstage_controller.go # controllers/backstage_controller_test.go # controllers/backstage_deployment.go # controllers/backstage_service.go # controllers/local_db_deployment.go # controllers/local_db_storage.go
Co-authored-by: Armel Soro <armel@rm3l.org>
Co-authored-by: Armel Soro <armel@rm3l.org>
Co-authored-by: Armel Soro <armel@rm3l.org>
After a quick sync with the docs team, let's continue moving fwd on this PR, so that they can have something they can rely upon as soon as possible. |
TODO: POSTGRES_HOST = <name-of the service> , POSTGRES_PORT = <port>[5432] can be delivered to the Backstage | ||
Deployment out of Postgres Secret? Indeed, it is not really a secret. | ||
## The Goal | ||
The Goal of [Backstage](https://backstage.io) Operator project is creating Kubernetes Operator for configuring, installing and synchronizing Backstage instance on Kubernetes/OpenShift. |
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 don't think we're targetting k8s, only openshift. IIRC the helmchart is for k8s (and openshift too) but the operator is ONLY for openshift. @jasperchui @christophe-f am I correct here?
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.
@nickboldt the codebase is working and tested on both K8s AND Openshift.
This is the message for GitHub repository README.
We probably need to slightly change this message and we definitely need to add more information about openshift/operatorhub as soon as we have it, but technically it is the truth and I doubt it will be much differ from the helm chart I guess (support of openshift == support of k8s + Route for this operator)
So, I'd definitely welcome improving the message from the marketing standpoint if it is the goal here but technically the current message it is relevant :)
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'll let @christophe-f weigh in from the PM side. I'm OK with technically correct docs, but we don't want to imply support that we won't actually do.
Co-authored-by: Nick Boldt <nboldt@redhat.com>
Co-authored-by: Armel Soro <armel@rm3l.org>
Co-authored-by: Armel Soro <armel@rm3l.org>
Co-authored-by: Armel Soro <armel@rm3l.org>
Co-authored-by: Armel Soro <armel@rm3l.org>
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.
we should really remove the arches that are not being built/supported -- in the CSV, see lines 167-169.
- arm64
- ppc64le
- s390x
Co-authored-by: Nick Boldt <nboldt@redhat.com>
Co-authored-by: Nick Boldt <nboldt@redhat.com>
Co-authored-by: Nick Boldt <nboldt@redhat.com>
Co-authored-by: Nick Boldt <nboldt@redhat.com>
Co-authored-by: Nick Boldt <nboldt@redhat.com>
Co-authored-by: Nick Boldt <nboldt@redhat.com>
+1 |
Description
Initial repository docs, WIP
Which issue(s) does this PR fix or relate to
related to #28
related to #83
related to #80