sandboxed-containers: fix the pullspecs of the operator #66424
Conversation
As we changed the pullspecs from quay.io to registry.redhat.io, we need the prow jobs to take it into account. The substitution expects a regular expression that matches the pullspecs from the CSV file that we create in our builds. It will replace it with the image pushed to the CI registry during the "build" step of the same job. Signed-off-by: Julien Ropé <[email protected]>
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
approved
|
[REHEARSALNOTIFIER]
Prior to this PR being merged, you will need to either run and acknowledge or opt to skip these rehearsals. Interacting with pj-rehearseComment: Once you are satisfied with the results of the rehearsals, comment: |
|
/pj-rehearse |
|
@littlejawa: now processing your pj-rehearse request. Please allow up to 10 minutes for jobs to trigger or cancel. |
|
/test all |
|
/pj-rehearse pull-ci-openshift-sandboxed-containers-operator-devel-sandboxed-containers-operator-e2e |
|
@littlejawa: now processing your pj-rehearse request. Please allow up to 10 minutes for jobs to trigger or cancel. |
|
@littlejawa: 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. |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: beraldoleal, littlejawa The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We no longer use https://github.com/openshift/sandboxed-containers-operator/tree/release-1.8, do we ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was wondering same.
No I think we don't - this branch has not seen updates in a while.
Should I delete the related jobs as part of the same PR?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes I think it is acceptable if you remove all the 1.8 related files in this PR but in a separate commit.
We'll create something for 1.10 when the release branch is created in the operator repo.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unrelated to this PR but now that OCP 4.19 is GA maybe we can bump the base image from "4.18" to "4.19" ?
As we changed the pullspecs from quay.io to registry.redhat.io, we need the prow jobs to take it into account.
The substitution expects a regular expression that matches the pullspecs from the CSV file that we create in our builds. It will replace it with the image pushed to the CI registry during the "build" step of the same job.