Skip to content
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

Cut v2.1.0-rc.0 #1483

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 25, 2021
Merged

Conversation

mrueg
Copy link
Member

@mrueg mrueg commented May 18, 2021

What this PR does / why we need it:

## v2.1.0-rc.0 / 2021-05-20
  
* [FEATURE] Add support for native TLS #1354
* [FEATURE] Add wildcard option to metric-labels-allowlist #1403
* [FEATURE] Add build info metric #1332
* [CHANGE] Add "uid" label to every pod metric #1304
* [CHANGE] Add resourceVersion to CronJob metrics #1447
* [CHANGE] Update go version and dependencies #1474
* [CHANGE] Bump client-go and friends to v0.21 (Kubernetes v1.21) #1463
* [CHANGE] Replace deprecated use of ioutil #1458
* [BUGFIX] Fix builder.Builder WithMetrics signature #1455
* [BUGFIX] Fix pod-metric missing reasons #1287
* [BUGFIX] Fix multiListWatch resourceVersion mismatch if watch reconnected #1377

@lilic @tariq1890 @brancz

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels May 18, 2021
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot requested a review from brancz May 18, 2021 12:41
Copy link
Member

@lilic lilic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you!

| **v1.9.8** | - | - | - | - | - |
| **v2.0.0** | -/✓ | -/✓ | ✓ | ✓ | -/✓ |
| **v2.1.0-rc.0** | -/✓ | -/✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Copy link
Member

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 need an rc, we can go straight to the release of v2.1, we mainly did this for 2.0 due to so many breaking changes. What do you think?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This works for me as well, I did it as the release process suggested to start with an rc. I don't mind going straight to 2.1.0 and branch off then. the risk should be rather low.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we should still follow the documented release process.

But having said that, if we want to retire the rc builds, I am okay with amending the release process in another PR and going forward with this approach

Copy link
Member

@lilic lilic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As mentioned I am happy with going with releases candidates 👍

error: pathspec 'release-2.1' did not match any file(s) known to git

You need to create a new release branch, do you have permissions for it?

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label May 20, 2021
@mrueg
Copy link
Member Author

mrueg commented May 20, 2021

As mentioned I am happy with going with releases candidates +1

error: pathspec 'release-2.1' did not match any file(s) known to git

You need to create a new release branch, do you have permissions for it?

I was following the release steps (to ensure they are correct). I can create a branch here for the release from master. I assume we need to do that first then?

@lilic
Copy link
Member

lilic commented May 20, 2021

Yeah, it's not a common step, but the benchmark test requires it.

Cut the new release branch, e.g. release-1.2, or merge/cherry-pick changes onto the minor release branch you intend to tag the release on

guess it's an odd ordering but its in the release docs.

@mrueg mrueg changed the base branch from master to release-2.1 May 20, 2021 15:01
@mrueg
Copy link
Member Author

mrueg commented May 20, 2021

I pushed the release-2.1 branch and switched this PR to point to it

Copy link
Contributor

@tariq1890 tariq1890 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 25, 2021
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: lilic, mrueg, tariq1890

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 /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 31b006a into kubernetes:release-2.1 May 25, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants