[kubevirt] Add auto-detection of the correct RHCOS base image #994

rmohr · 2022-02-10T15:11:08Z

What this PR does / why we need it:

The RHCOS version is now automatically detected based on the release payload. In order to leverage this new information, new ways exist to inject a proper RHCOS image into the NodePool:

Full automatic injection

In this case users simply don't specify a root disk on the NodePool teample. Hypershift will figure out the right RHCOS version and inject a DataVolume which imports the correct RHCOS version from the official RHCOS openstack download sources. The new commandline flags --root-volume-storage-class and --root-volume-size flags can be used to fill the new KubeVirtRootVolume API parts of the platform.

If a working storage provider is present, a cluster can now be created like this:

$ hypershift create cluster kubevirt --pull-secret /home/rmohr/pull-secret.txt

or in a more advanced example

$ hypershift create cluster kubevirt --pull-secret /home/rmohr/pull-secret.txt --root-volume-size 16 --root-volume-storage-class=myblockstorageclass

ContainerDisk

The checksum is used to cross-reference the
release payload version with the quay.io/containerdisks/rhcos version.

Check for containerDisks or DataVolumeTemplates which are named
rhcos and have in their container source {rhcos:openstack:checksum}
set and replace it with the discovered rhcos container version.

As an example: quay.io/containerdisks/rhcos:{rhcos:openstack:checksum} would be replaced be modified to quay.io/containerdisks/rhcos:mytag, if mytag`
would be discovered in the release payload.

On the hypershift client, a new flag called --containerdisk-repository was added to the kubevirt platform which can be pointend to any rhcos repository (e.g. quay.io/containerdisks/rhcos) which contains containerdisks which are tagged with the sha256sum of the openstack qcow2 image of rhcos.

A minimal example to make use of this feature is

$ hypershift create cluster kubevirt --pull-secret /home/rmohr/pull-secret.txt --containerdisk-repository quay.io/containerdisks/rhcos

Customized HTTP DataVolume import

Checks for a DataVolumeTemplates which is named
rhcos and have in its http source {rhcos:openstack:url}
set and replace it with the discovered rhcos download url.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, use fixes #<issue_number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, where issue_number might be a GitHub issue, or a Jira story:
Fixes #

Checklist

Subject and description added to both, commit and PR.
Relevant issues have been referenced.
This change includes docs.
This change includes unit tests.

rmohr · 2022-02-10T15:12:22Z

@nirarg @davidvossel @nunnatsa FYI

openshift-ci · 2022-02-10T15:23:31Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: rmohr
To complete the pull request process, please assign sjenning after the PR has been reviewed.
You can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @sjenning in a comment when ready.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

OWNERS

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

davidvossel

hey, I started thinking about this more. One thing that this PR exposed to me is that we already have the ability to detect the openstack url correctly. I didn't realize that.

Since we have this ability, I think it would be good for us to go ahead and support using the openstack images with DataVolumeTemplates so we have a someone practical path forward for users even if RFE-2501 doesn't land in 4.11

thoughts?

davidvossel · 2022-02-10T19:10:03Z

hypershift-operator/controllers/nodepool/kubevirt.go

+func kubevirtMachineTemplateSpec(nodePool *hyperv1.NodePool, containerDiskChecksum string) *capikubevirt.KubevirtMachineTemplateSpec {
+	template := nodePool.Spec.Platform.Kubevirt.NodeTemplate.DeepCopy()
+	dataVolumeTemplates := template.Spec.DataVolumeTemplates
+	for i, dv := range dataVolumeTemplates {
+		if dv.Name == "containervolume" {
+			if dv.Spec.Source != nil && dv.Spec.Source.Registry != nil &&
+				dv.Spec.Source.Registry.URL != nil && strings.Contains(*dv.Spec.Source.Registry.URL, "{rhcos:version}") {
+				image := strings.ReplaceAll(*dv.Spec.Source.Registry.URL, "{rhcos:version}", containerDiskChecksum)
+				dataVolumeTemplates[i].Spec.Source.Registry.URL = &image
+			}
+		}
+	}
+	volumes := template.Spec.Template.Spec.Volumes
+	for i, volume := range volumes {
+		if volume.Name == "containervolume" {
+			if volume.ContainerDisk != nil && strings.Contains(volume.ContainerDisk.Image, "{rhcos:version}") {
+				volumes[i].ContainerDisk.Image = strings.ReplaceAll(volume.ContainerDisk.Image, "{rhcos:version}", containerDiskChecksum)
+			}
+		}
+	}


While we're looking at this, I think it would be wise to go ahead and shore up the ability to use the openstack urls with DataVolumes so we have a solution we can support easily even without RFE-2501

To do that, can we make multiple magic template strings here?

{rhcos:openstack:url} - used to template the full https:// url of the openstack qcow
{rhcos:openstack:checksum} - used to template just the checksum part.
{rhcos:version:major} - used to template the major version in use
{rhcos:version:minor} - used to template the minor version in use

Then we can keep everything exactly the way it is today. Someone could set the container disk image using the cli with
--containerdisk=quay.io/containerdisks/rhcos-{rhcos:major}.{rhcos:minor}:{rhcos:openstack:checksum}

and if someone wanted to use a DataVolumeTemplate that referenced the openstack qcow url directly, they'd construct the NodePool with a DataVolumeTemplate in the kubevirt platform bit that looked like this.

dataVolumeTemplates: - metadata: name: rhcos-dv spec: pvc: accessModes: - ReadWriteOnce resources: requests: storage: 10Gi source: http: url: {rhcos:openstack:url}

the big idea I'm trying to work with here is a way to get us where we want to be "consuming officially published container disks" while allowing us to have a stop gap for end users "consume openstack urls for DataVolumes" and a path for development to "unofficially consume container disks"

if we template all of this, then we can meet all those use cases in a way that doesn't make us have to reverse course necessarily.

I am undecided. At least {rhcos:openstack:url} probably makes sense, but I am not really a fan of http based import. I would prefer to import also into datavolumes via a container disk. The involved raw-conversion and issing integrity checks is something I really don't like about datavolumes in general.

Regarding to

--containerdisk=quay.io/containerdisks/rhcos-{rhcos:major}.{rhcos:minor}:{rhcos:openstack:checksum}

Could you explain what the purpose of the major and minor template parameter is? I can understand checksum because it gives the exactly matching disk. If I want a specific image I can specify it with a clear tag and this would for instance mean that I don't know the version I install, but I assume that specific version a dedicated repo exists.

davidvossel · 2022-02-10T19:11:55Z

cmd/nodepool/kubevirt/create.go

+	// TODO (nargaman): replace with official container image, after RFE-2501 is completed
+	// As long as there is no official container image
+	// The image must be provided by user
+	// Otherwise it must fail
+	if o.ContainerDiskImage != "" && o.ContainerDiskRepo != "" {
+		return errors.New("only one of \"--containerdisk\" and \"--containerdisk-repository\" can be specified")
+	}
+	if o.ContainerDiskImage == "" && o.ContainerDiskRepo == "" {
+		return errors.New("the container disk image for the Kubevirt machine must be provided by user (\"--containerdisk\" or \"containerdisk-repository\" flag)")
+	}
+	if o.ContainerDiskRepo != "" {
+		o.ContainerDiskImage = o.ContainerDiskRepo + ":{rhcos:version}"
+	}


maybe we can get away with not needing to specify a new container-disk-repo cli arg at all, and just simply use the templated values in the container-disk string.

I am unsure. I think that --containerdisk-repository is much clearer than asking people to add various different template paramters. At least when finally dealing with air-gaped installations it is much clearer to just point to the mirror repo. What do you think?

davidvossel · 2022-02-14T14:44:24Z

@rmohr to summarize our discussion about this issue.

We'll move ahead with two templated values {rhcos:openstack:url} and {rhcos:openstack:checksum}

That allows us to use the http import immediately and begin using the "unoffical" container disks as well.

For the --containerdisk-repository, i don't have very strong feelings about it right now. we can include it or not, it's unclear if it will be something we use long term, but it could make sense for now, and potentially make sense in disconnected environments.

netlify · 2022-02-23T10:02:59Z

✔️ Deploy Preview for hypershift-docs ready!

🔨 Explore the source changes: bd2113f

🔍 Inspect the deploy log: https://app.netlify.com/sites/hypershift-docs/deploys/62276db50826e50007571258

😎 Browse the preview: https://deploy-preview-994--hypershift-docs.netlify.app/how-to/kubevirt-platform

rmohr · 2022-02-23T11:29:17Z

hypershift-operator/controllers/nodepool/nodepool_controller.go

@@ -342,13 +356,14 @@ func (r *NodePoolReconciler) reconcile(ctx context.Context, hcluster *hyperv1.Ho
 	})

 	// Validate platform specific input.
-	var ami string
-	if nodePool.Spec.Platform.Type == hyperv1.AWSPlatform {
+	rhcosInfo := &rhcosDetails{}


@enxebre I guess this would be another interesting point where potentially every provider except none would have to diverge regaring to what exactly to render in the machine template. Did you already think about a structure on how you want this to look like?

I just hacked something in here at the moment.

rmohr · 2022-02-23T11:29:49Z

@davidvossel I think the draft should now look like we agreed. Can you take a look?

davidvossel

@rmohr makes sense, the only thing I question is if we should support default behavior that automatically uses a datavolume+openstack rhcos url when people perform a hypershift create cluster

ideally, i'd like for this just to work out of the box today with hypershift create cluster kubevirt -name my-cluster if possible without needing to know anything about disks.

Do you think using the openstack url + datavolume would be a practical default at this point?

davidvossel · 2022-02-24T21:41:43Z

cmd/cluster/kubevirt/create.go

-		if opts.KubevirtPlatform.ContainerDiskImage == "" {
-			return errors.New("the container disk image for the Kubevirt machine must be provided by user (\"--containerdisk\" flag)")
+		if opts.KubevirtPlatform.ContainerDiskImage != "" && opts.KubevirtPlatform.ContainerDiskRepo != "" {
+			return errors.New("only one of \"--containerdisk\" and \"--containerdisk-repository\" can be specified")
+		}
+		if opts.KubevirtPlatform.ContainerDiskImage == "" && opts.KubevirtPlatform.ContainerDiskRepo == "" {
+			return errors.New("the container disk image for the Kubevirt machine must be provided by user (\"--containerdisk\" or \"--containerdisk-repository\" flag)")
+		}
+		if opts.KubevirtPlatform.ContainerDiskRepo != "" {
+			opts.KubevirtPlatform.ContainerDiskImage = fmt.Sprintf("%v:%v", opts.KubevirtPlatform.ContainerDiskRepo, util.RHCOSOpenStackChecksumParameter)


if neither the container or the repo are provided, can we just default to using the datavolume http import?

rmohr · 2022-02-25T13:57:51Z

@rmohr makes sense, the only thing I question is if we should support default behavior that automatically uses a datavolume+openstack rhcos url when people perform a hypershift create cluster

ideally, i'd like for this just to work out of the box today with hypershift create cluster kubevirt -name my-cluster if possible without needing to know anything about disks.

Do you think using the openstack url + datavolume would be a practical default at this point?

Makes sense, working on it 👍

davidvossel

getting close. I just have reservations about the modifications to the nodepool api. Maybe we can get what we're looking for using the hypershift cli with the existing api?

davidvossel · 2022-02-25T18:06:30Z

cmd/nodepool/kubevirt/create.go

 								Disks: []kubevirtv1.Disk{
 									{
-										Name: "containervolume",
+										Name: util.RHCOSMagicVolumeName,
 										DiskDevice: kubevirtv1.DiskDevice{
 											Disk: &kubevirtv1.DiskTarget{
 												Bus: "virtio",


I think we need to do the same sort of disk/volume defaulting here as in the api/fixtures/example.go ? It's unclear to me why we have two locations where it looks like the VirtualMachineInstance is specified for the create command.

I was experimenting here a little bit with the API. The idea is, that people and the hypershift commandline tool are by default no longer specifying the root disk at all. It just gets added automatically. As a fallback, the rhcos volume can be overwritten completely. But instead of having to always completely override it, the RootVolume section is added, similar to AWS, which only exposes size and storage class.

davidvossel · 2022-02-25T18:25:37Z

api/v1alpha1/nodepool_types.go

+
+	// RootVolume specifies configuration for the root volume of node instances.
+	//
+	// +optional
+	RootVolume *KubeVirtRootVolume `json:"rootVolume,omitempty"`


can we get away with not adding this RootVolume info to the nodepool?

Would it be possible to just have the size and storage class as cmd options that render the NodeTemplate with the expected size/storage class on the datavolumetemplate?

davidvossel · 2022-02-25T18:25:38Z

api/v1alpha1/nodepool_types.go

+
+	// RootVolume specifies configuration for the root volume of node instances.
+	//
+	// +optional
+	RootVolume *KubeVirtRootVolume `json:"rootVolume,omitempty"`


can we get away with not adding this RootVolume info to the nodepool?

Would it be possible to just have the size and storage class as cmd options that render the NodeTemplate with the expected size/storage class on the datavolumetemplate?

weird this exact same comment got posted twice. Not sure how that happened.

rmohr · 2022-03-04T13:51:27Z

@davidvossel PTAL

davidvossel

/lgtm

This looks great, maybe it's time to revise the title and description to make it a real non wip pr?

I'll check this code out and give it a run locally at some point soon to make sure the default workflow works as expected with the datavolume support. The kubevirt e2e lanes will verify the container disk flow

davidvossel · 2022-03-07T14:44:14Z

cmd/cluster/kubevirt/create.go

+		if (opts.KubevirtPlatform.ContainerDiskImage != "" && opts.KubevirtPlatform.ContainerDiskRepo != "") && (opts.KubevirtPlatform.RootVolumeSize > 0 || opts.KubevirtPlatform.RootVolumeStorageClass != "") {
+			return errors.New("container disk options (\"--containerdisk*\" flag) can not be used together with customized root volume options (\"--root-volume-*\" flags)")
+		}


I think this is fine for now. We could technically support this combination in the future if we wanted to though.

davidvossel

/lgtm cancel

found a minor issue during testing.

davidvossel · 2022-03-07T21:56:21Z

api/fixtures/example_kubevirt.go

+	} else {
+		dataVolume := defaultDataVolume()
+		setDataVolumeDefaults(&dataVolume, o)
+		exampleTemplate.NodeTemplate.Spec.DataVolumeTemplates = []kubevirtv1.DataVolumeTemplateSpec{dataVolume}
+	}
+	return exampleTemplate


you need to set an entry in the exampleTemplate.NodeTemplate.Spec.Template.Spec.Volumes for this data volume

We need three things

DataVolumeTemplate

Volume

Disk

right now this just lacks the volume part. I discovered this while testing.

hardys · 2022-03-08T13:59:01Z

@rmohr I'm not familiar with the kubervirt images here, but wanted to mention that since 4.10 the RHCOS live-iso image is shipped in the release payload via the machine-os-images container, do you think in future the kubvirt bootimage could be derived from that, or will the containerdisks side-repo be required indefinitely?

rmohr · 2022-03-08T14:22:47Z

@rmohr I'm not familiar with the kubervirt images here, but wanted to mention that since 4.10 the RHCOS live-iso image is shipped in the release payload via the machine-os-images container, do you think in future the kubvirt bootimage could be derived from that, or will the containerdisks side-repo be required indefinitely?

@hardys could you point me to the images which are in there? Is it identical to the openstack rhcos image? In general, kubevirt would probably have to support a different disk source type to leverage it. Containerdisks are the canonical way to get images in kubevirt and they have a certain layout.

Prepares the hypershift cli to auto-detect the required rhcos version from the cluster release payload. Since this is not known at cluster creation time, template parameters are introduced: `{rhcos:openstack:checksum}` for container disks, and `{rhcos:openstack:url}` for datavolume imports. The hypershift cli is extended the following way: * By default the hypershift CLI adds now a datavolume which will http-import the later-on auto-detected rhcos image. * `--containerdisk-repository` can be specified, to let the cluster figure out the right rhcos version when containerdisks should be used. Example: `--containerdisk-repository=quay.io/containerdisks/rhcos`. * `--root-volume-size` and `--root-volume-storage-class` can be used to customize the datavolume. Finally the nodepool-create and the cluster-create command now share the same kubevirt template to remove the duplication. Signed-off-by: Roman Mohr <rmohr@redhat.com>

First the OpenStack RHCOS image, belonging to the current release is detected. Then, if `{rhcos:openstack:checksum}` or `{rhcos:openstack:url}` are found in the machine template, they are replaced with the corresponding detected RHCOS version on machine creation. A new `ValidRHCOSImage` condition is added which has the same function like `ValidAMI` but reports the actual detected RHCOS version. It can later be used by a broad variety of platforms, not just AWS. Signed-off-by: Roman Mohr <rmohr@redhat.com>

hardys · 2022-03-08T14:59:09Z

@hardys could you point me to the images which are in there? Is it identical to the openstack rhcos image?

@rmohr I think it only contains the live-iso image currently, with some scripts to either extract the ISO (potentially with modifications performed via coreos-installer)

It's not identical to the openstack qcow image, but AFAIK the main difference (other than the ISO/QCOW format) is the default platform that decides which ignition data source is enabled, that could be set via another copy script e.g via coreos-installer iso kargs modify -r ignition.platform.id=metal=openstack

Maybe this isn't a good fit for kubervirt, but I thought it worth mentioning, since baremetal IPI recently moved from the openstack qcow image to this release payload ISO image, and it potentially makes lifecycling the bootimage over multiple versions a lot easier.

openshift-ci · 2022-03-08T16:08:42Z

@rmohr: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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. I understand the commands that are listed here.

rmohr · 2022-03-11T11:05:01Z

@rmohr I think it only contains the live-iso image currently, with some scripts to either extract the ISO (potentially with modifications performed via coreos-installer)

It's not identical to the openstack qcow image, but AFAIK the main difference (other than the ISO/QCOW format) is the default platform that decides which ignition data source is enabled, that could be set via another copy script e.g via coreos-installer iso kargs modify -r ignition.platform.id=metal=openstack

Maybe this isn't a good fit for kubervirt, but I thought it worth mentioning, since baremetal IPI recently moved from the openstack qcow image to this release payload ISO image, and it potentially makes lifecycling the bootimage over multiple versions a lot easier.

As far as I can see, what we have in common is that we are shipping content in containers. KubeVirt just expects a fully working and configured RHCOS, like for openstack and it can't modify the image on the fly, there is a well established and popular format on the kubevirt side which we want to integrate with.

rmohr · 2022-03-14T12:27:13Z

/hold

The openstack url download is not really working. Going now for the more final flow. Sorting out details in coreos/stream-metadata-go#41
and coreos/coreos-assembler#2750.

openshift-ci · 2022-03-16T11:59:02Z

@rmohr: PR needs rebase.

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.

openshift-bot · 2022-06-14T12:43:54Z

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.

Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.
Exclude this issue from closing by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

/lifecycle stale

enxebre · 2022-07-11T09:59:45Z

@rmohr just doing so housekeeping, please reopen if we still want to pursue this
/close

openshift-ci · 2022-07-11T10:00:42Z

@enxebre: Closed this PR.

In response to this:

@rmohr just doing so housekeeping, please reopen if we still want to pursue this
/close

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.

rmohr · 2022-08-05T08:39:43Z

@rmohr just doing so housekeeping, please reopen if we still want to pursue this
/close

👍 was great working a little bit on hypershift with you.

openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Feb 10, 2022

openshift-ci bot requested review from csrwng and ironcladlou February 10, 2022 15:21

rmohr force-pushed the detect-rhcos-kubevirt branch from f61bee4 to b9511a6 Compare February 10, 2022 16:26

davidvossel reviewed Feb 10, 2022

View reviewed changes

rmohr force-pushed the detect-rhcos-kubevirt branch from b9511a6 to 1b0e13d Compare February 23, 2022 10:02

rmohr commented Feb 23, 2022

View reviewed changes

davidvossel reviewed Feb 24, 2022

View reviewed changes

rmohr force-pushed the detect-rhcos-kubevirt branch from 1b0e13d to 7aa5d4a Compare February 25, 2022 10:32

rmohr force-pushed the detect-rhcos-kubevirt branch 5 times, most recently from 3ba071a to 10c7d55 Compare February 25, 2022 16:45

davidvossel reviewed Feb 25, 2022

View reviewed changes

rmohr force-pushed the detect-rhcos-kubevirt branch from 10c7d55 to 0d3820e Compare March 4, 2022 13:49

openshift-ci bot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Mar 6, 2022

davidvossel reviewed Mar 7, 2022

View reviewed changes

openshift-ci bot assigned davidvossel Mar 7, 2022

openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Mar 7, 2022

davidvossel reviewed Mar 7, 2022

View reviewed changes

openshift-ci bot removed the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Mar 7, 2022

rmohr changed the title ~~[wip] [kubevirt] Hackish minimal rhcos auto-detection~~ [kubevirt] Add auto-detection of the correct RHCOS base image Mar 8, 2022

openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Mar 8, 2022

rmohr added 2 commits March 8, 2022 15:52

rmohr force-pushed the detect-rhcos-kubevirt branch from 0d3820e to bd2113f Compare March 8, 2022 14:52

openshift-ci bot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Mar 8, 2022

openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Mar 14, 2022

openshift-ci bot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Mar 16, 2022

davidvossel mentioned this pull request Apr 21, 2022

Transition KubeVirt platform to using persistent storage for root volume #1298

Closed

openshift-ci bot added the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Jun 14, 2022

openshift-ci bot closed this Jul 11, 2022

[kubevirt] Add auto-detection of the correct RHCOS base image #994

[kubevirt] Add auto-detection of the correct RHCOS base image #994

Conversation

rmohr commented Feb 10, 2022 • edited Loading

rmohr commented Feb 10, 2022

openshift-ci bot commented Feb 10, 2022

davidvossel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

davidvossel Feb 10, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

davidvossel commented Feb 14, 2022

netlify bot commented Feb 23, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rmohr commented Feb 23, 2022 • edited Loading

davidvossel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rmohr commented Feb 25, 2022

davidvossel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rmohr commented Mar 4, 2022

davidvossel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

davidvossel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

hardys commented Mar 8, 2022 • edited Loading

rmohr commented Mar 8, 2022

hardys commented Mar 8, 2022 • edited Loading

openshift-ci bot commented Mar 8, 2022

rmohr commented Mar 11, 2022

rmohr commented Mar 14, 2022

openshift-ci bot commented Mar 16, 2022

openshift-bot commented Jun 14, 2022

enxebre commented Jul 11, 2022

openshift-ci bot commented Jul 11, 2022

rmohr commented Aug 5, 2022

rmohr commented Feb 10, 2022 •

edited

Loading

davidvossel Feb 10, 2022 •

edited

Loading

netlify bot commented Feb 23, 2022 •

edited

Loading

rmohr commented Feb 23, 2022 •

edited

Loading

hardys commented Mar 8, 2022 •

edited

Loading

hardys commented Mar 8, 2022 •

edited

Loading