Skip to content

Conversation

@grokspawn
Copy link

No description provided.

Signed-off-by: grokspawn <jordan@nimblewidget.com>
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested a review from ashcrow October 29, 2025 19:01
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Oct 29, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign rphillips for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested a review from mrunalp October 29, 2025 19:01
Signed-off-by: grokspawn <jordan@nimblewidget.com>
Signed-off-by: grokspawn <jordan@nimblewidget.com>
Assisted-by: claude
Signed-off-by: grokspawn <jordan@nimblewidget.com>
@jianzhangbjz
Copy link
Member

/assign @Xia-Zhao-rh


### API Extensions

Adds optional `release` field to FBC package schema in operator-registry declcfg format. Pure additive change—no CRDs, webhooks, or finalizers modified. Change confined to bundle metadata schema in FBC catalogs and operator-registry databases.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this still accurate?

Modifications are being made to the CSV CRD right?

Copy link
Author

@grokspawn grokspawn Dec 1, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Bundle versions are authored in the form of CSVs, which are a part of the registry+v1 bundle format. However, this is bundle-scoped data which is ultimately composed in FBC by opm tooling as part of the olm.bundle schema. The full scope of this feature will represent the information in the declcfg olm.bundle schema of the FBC, but to get there it has to exist in the bundle somewhere.


## Motivation

FBC lacks a standardized mechanism for operator repackaging. Current approaches encode release information in semver build metadata (e.g., `7.10.2-opr-2+0.1676475747.p`), conflating operator version with build/release metadata. This violates [the semver spec](https://www.semver.org) and undermines FBC's reliance on semver ordering. This enhancement enables programmatic distinction between operator version and release version, supporting repackaging workflows without version changes.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

To make sure I'm following along correctly, the crux of the issue here is that operator authors don't have a way to make a packaging metadata change without also up-versioning their entire package?

And the proposed solution here is to keep that requirement, but add a new field that allows an operator author to state that this up-versioned package actually installs release X of the operator?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

operator authors publishing via SQLite catalog approaches have a way to make a packaging-only metadata change w/o up-versioning. (With the caveat that only Freshmaker used it, for CVE resolution in base images, with a hidden flag in opm tooling that made it essentially pipeline-only.) FBC doesn't provide an analogue.
So we need versioning data for the packaging version, distinct from the operator version.

Signed-off-by: grokspawn <jordan@nimblewidget.com>
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Dec 1, 2025

@grokspawn: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@grokspawn
Copy link
Author

/assign @oceanc80

Copy link
Contributor

@everettraven everettraven left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Aside from ongoing review of the API changes, this change seems fine to me.

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.

6 participants