Skip to content

Conversation

@def-
Copy link
Contributor

@def- def- commented Nov 18, 2025

Checklist

  • This PR has adequate test coverage / QA involvement has been duly considered. (trigger-ci for additional test/nightly runs)
  • This PR has an associated up-to-date design doc, is a design doc (template), or is sufficiently small to not require a design.
  • If this PR evolves an existing $T ⇔ Proto$T mapping (possibly in a backwards-incompatible way), then it is tagged with a T-proto label.
  • If this PR will require changes to cloud orchestration or tests, there is a companion cloud PR to account for those changes that is tagged with the release-blocker label (example).
  • If this PR includes major user-facing behavior changes, I have pinged the relevant PM to schedule a changelog post.

@def- def- requested a review from a team as a code owner November 18, 2025 15:46
@def- def- requested a review from jubrad November 18, 2025 15:48
Copy link
Contributor

@kay-kim kay-kim left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

QQ: given that the versions going forward on v26+ will correspond ... will we need this compatibility table? That is, v26.0.0 Helm/orchestratord/environmentd

@alex-hunt-materialize
Copy link
Contributor

QQ: given that the versions going forward on v26+ will correspond ... will we need this compatibility table? That is, v26.0.0 Helm/orchestratord/environmentd

It might still make sense, just as a mechanism to tell them that the release exists.

@def- def- merged commit 260f9da into MaterializeInc:main Nov 18, 2025
10 checks passed
@def- def- deleted the pr-automate-operator-compat branch November 18, 2025 17:00
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants