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

Solver: Introduce constraints for "upgrade edges" #267

Closed
jmprusi opened this issue Jun 20, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #275
Closed

Solver: Introduce constraints for "upgrade edges" #267

jmprusi opened this issue Jun 20, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #275
Assignees

Comments

@jmprusi
Copy link
Member

jmprusi commented Jun 20, 2023

For an operator upgrade to be valid, the new operator version should comply with a set of constraints:

  • Channel: The new operator version should be part of the same channel
  • Replaces: The currently installed operator version should be included in the "replace" field of the new desired operator version (see skips)
  • Skips: Skips define from what version it is possible to jump to without upgrading one version at a time. This should be considered and not only the "replaces" field.

related to #231

@joelanford
Copy link
Member

Channel: The new operator version should be part of the same channel

This is a anti-goal. This would prohibit upgrades between channels even when there is an upgrade edge from the currently installed version defined in the new channel (and the user is not opposed to using that channel)

@joelanford
Copy link
Member

Related: #274 (comment)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Archived in project
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants