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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Kill all references to CI builds of release-1.0 and release-1.1 #274

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 12, 2016
Merged

Kill all references to CI builds of release-1.0 and release-1.1 #274

merged 2 commits into from
Jul 12, 2016

Conversation

zmerlynn
Copy link
Member

This eliminates any job that builds release-1.0 or release-1.1, and any job that tries to pull those releases from CI buckets.

This also reverts #256, since the combination of kubernetes/kubernetes#28172, kubernetes/kubernetes#28193 and kubernetes/kubernetes#28792 are now present in release-1.2 forward.

zmerlynn added 2 commits July 12, 2016 11:12
@zmerlynn
Revert "Force CI 1.1 and 1.2 jobs to use the kubernetes-release bucket"
4344ea1 
This reverts commit 64e250b.
@zmerlynn
Kill all references to CI builds of release-1.0 and release-1.1
e8f0799 
This eliminates any job that builds release-1.0 or release-1.1, and
any job that tries to pull those releases from CI buckets.
@spxtr
Copy link
Contributor

spxtr commented Jul 12, 2016

Do you also want to remove upgrade jobs?

@zmerlynn
Copy link
Member Author

Unless I'm crazy, the upgrade jobs start from release versions. We need to support them for a bit longer. I can kill the 1.0 job possibly, though.

@zmerlynn
Copy link
Member Author

I looked at the upgrade jobs, and they're still pulling from the CI bucket. That's actually fine - they'll just get the last job we built. I could kill the release-1.0 upgrades if you want, though. Thoughts?

@zmerlynn
Copy link
Member Author

Let's continue and leave the upgrade jobs in there for now. They'll keep pulling the last CI build that was built, which is fine, and I verified they're already pulling from gs://kubernetes-release-dev/ci. If anyone needs to go back and continue updating tests, we can reinstate the build job, but I think the upgrade jobs need some fair amount of work anyways.

@spxtr
Copy link
Contributor

spxtr commented Jul 12, 2016

Seems reasonable either way. If the 1.0-1.2 upgrade job is broken, will anyone even notice or care?

@zmerlynn
Copy link
Member Author

We should be looking at it. The problem is that needs to be a supported path for GKE.

@spxtr
Copy link
Contributor

spxtr commented Jul 12, 2016

OK, sounds good. PR looks good to me but I'm not too familiar with what's going on.

@zmerlynn
Copy link
Member Author

Cool. Merging so it has a chance to burn.

@zmerlynn zmerlynn merged commit d6870b2 into kubernetes:master Jul 12, 2016
@zmerlynn zmerlynn deleted the die-1.1-die branch July 12, 2016 21:44
@spxtr
Copy link
Contributor

spxtr commented Jul 12, 2016

Hah, because build artifacts are owned by root, Jenkins can't delete the build-1.0 job. I'll do it manually.

foxish pushed a commit to foxish/test-infra that referenced this pull request Jan 21, 2017
@eparis
Merge pull request kubernetes#274 from lavalamp/shame
0f63c14 
First draft of 'shame' report.
mborsz pushed a commit to mborsz/test-infra that referenced this pull request Dec 14, 2018
@k8s-ci-robot
Merge pull request kubernetes#274 from krzysied/cluster_loader_runtim…
1634939 
…e_list_retry

ClusterLoader - Adding retry to listing runtime objects
ostromart pushed a commit to ostromart/test-infra that referenced this pull request Jul 26, 2019
@yutongz
Merge pull request kubernetes#274 from yutongz/metrics
d8f6a29 
Skip broken builds
grantr pushed a commit to grantr/test-infra that referenced this pull request Feb 21, 2020
@adrcunha @knative-prow-robot
Don't run E2E tests if DOCKER_REPO_OVERRIDE is the release GCR (kuber…
defbe8e 
…netes#274)
MushuEE pushed a commit to MushuEE/test-infra that referenced this pull request Mar 17, 2022
@morphar
Initial version of protoc-gen-jsonschema (kubernetes#274)
dd0d92f 
* Handle nested messages

This incorporates @timburks suggestion for handling nested messages and their naming

* Ignore services without http annotations

* Move duplicated name generation code to a function

* Rename test: Ignore annotaions -> Ignore services without annotaions

Just to be clear what it does

* Change id to handle id / $id and add readOnly and writeOnly

JSON Schema ID is named "id" in draft-04, while everything after uses "$id".
This change is needed to make JSON Schema generation possible.

* Initial version of protoc-gen-jsonschema

* Copyright 2020 -> Copyright 2021

* Enable optional keyword
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees

@fejta fejta

@spxtr spxtr

@ixdy ixdy

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@zmerlynn @spxtr @fejta @googlebot @ixdy