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

Bump containerd to 1.0.2 (cfd04396dc68220d1cecbe686a6cc3aa5ce3667c) #36308

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 15, 2018
Merged

Bump containerd to 1.0.2 (cfd04396dc68220d1cecbe686a6cc3aa5ce3667c) #36308

merged 2 commits into from
Feb 15, 2018

Conversation

thaJeztah
Copy link
Member

AkihiroSuda
AkihiroSuda approved these changes Feb 14, 2018
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@AkihiroSuda AkihiroSuda left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM if green

@thaJeztah
Copy link
Member Author

@dnephin I didn’t bump the censored package (as that one was picked from master); let me know if you think we should bump to a more recent commit

@thaJeztah
Copy link
Member Author

censored -> vendored damn you autocorrect 😂

dnephin
dnephin approved these changes Feb 14, 2018
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@dnephin dnephin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@kolyshkin
Copy link
Contributor

Is there any specific reason to use git commit hash (cfd04396....) rather than the tag (v1.0.2)? To me, using a tag if possible looks cleaner and also self-descriptive.

@dnephin
Copy link
Member

dnephin commented Feb 14, 2018

We have run into an issue in the past where a project used a branch name that looked like a tag (v1.x.x), which got us into trouble when they removed the branch. However in this case we know this to be a tag, and we can trust the project to not remove the tag, so we should be fine to use the tag I think.

@thaJeztah
Copy link
Member Author

Reason I switched to a commit;

vdemeester
vdemeester approved these changes Feb 15, 2018
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@vdemeester vdemeester left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM 🌵

@vdemeester vdemeester merged commit 41bed9e into moby:master Feb 15, 2018
@thaJeztah thaJeztah deleted the bump-containerd-1.0.2 branch February 15, 2018 08:50
@cpuguy83 cpuguy83 mentioned this pull request Feb 21, 2018
Closed
tophj-ibm
tophj-ibm reviewed Mar 7, 2018
View reviewed changes
vendor.conf
@@ -107,12 +107,12 @@ google.golang.org/genproto d80a6e20e776b0b17a324d0ba1ab50a39c8e8944
github.com/containerd/containerd 3fa104f843ec92328912e042b767d26825f202aa
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

just wondering, why we don't keep this the same as the sha in binaires-commits?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We want to use the official tagged releases for the binary, but the latest code for the client library, so they will be different SHAs.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@dnephin dnephin dnephin approved these changes

@tophj-ibm tophj-ibm tophj-ibm left review comments

@vdemeester vdemeester vdemeester approved these changes

@AkihiroSuda AkihiroSuda AkihiroSuda approved these changes

@tianon tianon Awaiting requested review from tianon tianon is a code owner

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
area/runtime impact/changelog status/2-code-review
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
7 participants
@thaJeztah @kolyshkin @dnephin @vdemeester @AkihiroSuda @tophj-ibm @GordonTheTurtle