-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.4k
Test upgrade/downgrade to patch release for IPsec #28815
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.
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
Conversation
ffb9ea2
to
df4533d
Compare
df4533d
to
93bf6e4
Compare
/test |
/ci-ipsec-upgrade |
f45234b
to
d933888
Compare
/test |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice commit history and description! ❤️
d933888
to
91a2888
Compare
Since the previous version, I simply fixed the mistake reported by Paul. |
Skip upgrade/downgrade test to patch release when we fail to retrieve the number for the previous patch release. This happens mostly for the main branch (where testing upgrades/downgrades is covered by the tests to the previous stable (minor) release already). This may also happen on top of release preparation commits, where we set the patch number to 90, and where it is non-trivial to retrieve the previous patch release number. This case doesn't matter much, because commits for preparing releases are Not Expected To Break IPsec (TM). Signed-off-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com>
91a2888
to
40cf054
Compare
@julianwiedmann Good thing you asked, this commit description is wrong indeed. I wrote it the other way initially, but apparently I got confused at some point and changed to the actual, mistaken description - then forgot to check it a final time before pushing 🤔. Anyway, I just fixed it. |
/test |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@julianwiedmann Good thing you asked, this commit description is wrong indeed. I wrote it the other way initially, but apparently I got confused at some point and changed to the actual, mistaken description - then forgot to check it a final time before pushing 🤔. Anyway, I just fixed it.
Thank you!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Re-approving to catch the new cilium/ipsec review request.
Related to
Corresponding backport PRs: