-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
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
KCP: validate version changes are no further than one minor version #2578
Comments
I think blocking downgrades outright is the safe bet. That said, we probably need to look into providing a rollback path for partially completed upgrades. |
/milestone v0.3.x |
I was also trying a similar scenario (1.16->1.18) without realizing that it is not supported to skip a minor version in the current upgrade flow. Any plans to support skipping minor versions or is this intentional and something that is likely to remain for the foreseeable future? Also, Is there a section of the book or similar where I can read about CAPI requirements such as this? It would be great for new comers to have this documented along with any other gotchas (e.g. I also just learned that k8s 1.16 is a min requirement for v1alpha3). |
It's likely to remain for as long as it's a limitation of Kubernetes/kubeadm. |
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. If this issue is safe to close now please do so with Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta. |
/lifecycle frozen |
/milestone v0.3.9 |
@vincepri: Please ensure the request meets the requirements listed here. If this request no longer meets these requirements, the label can be removed In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
/kind bug |
User Story
As an operator, I would like to get immediate feedback when I try to ask the KCP to perform a multi-version upgrade.
Detailed Description
Pulling this out of #2489: if a KCP is pointing to version 1.16.x, it should reject updates that ask to upgrade the control plane directly to 1.18.x.
Anything else you would like to add:
I'm not sure what the semantics should be around downgrades – do we deny those outright?
/kind feature
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: