Skip to content

Conversation

@potiuk
Copy link
Member

@potiuk potiuk commented Jan 12, 2025


^ Add meaningful description above
Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information.
In case of fundamental code changes, an Airflow Improvement Proposal (AIP) is needed.
In case of a new dependency, check compliance with the ASF 3rd Party License Policy.
In case of backwards incompatible changes please leave a note in a newsfragment file, named {pr_number}.significant.rst or {issue_number}.significant.rst, in newsfragments.

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Jan 12, 2025

This one synchronizes "pull_request_target" workflow changes with tip of the providers-fab/v1-5 branch

@potiuk potiuk changed the title Synchronize build scripts with main [providers-fab/v1-5] Synchronize build scripts with main Jan 12, 2025
@potiuk potiuk requested review from eladkal and jscheffl January 12, 2025 14:10
@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Jan 12, 2025

Same story as for v2-10-test -> that providers-fab/v1-5 branch also still has pull-request-target workflow and it needs to be removed.

Copy link
Contributor

@jscheffl jscheffl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same as previous PR - but hoping that not (many/any) patch cycles on this branch are needed.

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Jan 12, 2025

Same as previous PR - but hoping that not (many/any) patch cycles on this branch are needed.

Yeah. That one should be WAY easier to get green.

@eladkal
Copy link
Contributor

eladkal commented Jan 12, 2025

Why do we need this change?
We don't have plans to cut another release feom this branch

@potiuk
Copy link
Member Author

potiuk commented Jan 12, 2025

We don't have plans to cut another release feom this branch

We might need to do it (because of security) - and I know of some security fixes that are coming to FAB.
I prefer to do it now - when I know exactly how to fix issues, because I've just done it for v2-10-test - rather than trying to remember it 3 weeks from now.

@potiuk potiuk force-pushed the sync-build-scripts-to-main branch from df53339 to cae3417 Compare January 12, 2025 17:22
@potiuk potiuk added the legacy api Whether legacy API changes should be allowed in PR label Jan 12, 2025
@potiuk potiuk force-pushed the sync-build-scripts-to-main branch 4 times, most recently from 46e0042 to 701bc98 Compare January 12, 2025 20:45
@potiuk potiuk force-pushed the sync-build-scripts-to-main branch from 701bc98 to 36121cc Compare January 12, 2025 21:14
@potiuk potiuk merged commit 7cd571b into providers-fab/v1-5 Jan 12, 2025
136 checks passed
@potiuk potiuk deleted the sync-build-scripts-to-main branch May 22, 2025 12:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

area:dev-tools legacy api Whether legacy API changes should be allowed in PR

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants