-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 59
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
Enable local selection of dependencies #83
Conversation
CLIENT_GEN_VERSION ?= v0.26.1 | ||
CONTROLLER_GEN_VERSION ?= v0.9.2 | ||
GOLANGCI_LINT_VERSION ?= v1.52.0 | ||
MOQ_VERSION ?= v0.3.4 |
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.
As mentioned before, I would drop these from here and they shouldn't really be configurable on a given branch.
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.
Retracting, given my coment above.
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.
I would still remove them from here and only specify them in the Dockerfile. What motivation is there for keeping them defined here?
If these are "real" dependencies, then we should manage them using something else so that we can better manage the update lifecycle.
cc67a3c
to
fcf76c5
Compare
7b58c6a
to
f7b344f
Compare
Signed-off-by: Carlos Eduardo Arango Gutierrez <[email protected]>
|
||
TARGETS := $(MAKE_TARGETS) $(CMD_TARGETS) | ||
|
||
DOCKER_TARGETS := $(patsubst %,docker-%, $(TARGETS)) | ||
.PHONY: $(TARGETS) $(DOCKER_TARGETS) | ||
DOCKERFILE_DEVEL := $(CURDIR)/deployments/container/Dockerfile.devel |
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.
Could we move this Dockerfile. It is NOT related to deploying this component. It is used to build the go binaries locally.
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.
I don't agree with the mix that we have here. We now have this Dockerfile defined in two places -- the k8s-test-infra
repo and here with no clear dependencies defined between the two. What causes each of these to change? How do we ensure that these are kept in sync.
The original motivation for the k8s-test-infra image was to have a single image to build these components and to be able to reuse that in the CI steps. At the moment, however, we seemt to have moved to native Golang steps -- with the exception of the build step which could also be native in this case.
Could we rather switch to using local images and not depend on k8s-test-infra
at all?
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.
The approach on this Patch was to enable a fall-back option for local development, to enable a developer to try new versions of the same dependencies at will in real-time, without requiring a PR against k8s-test-infra
to bump a dependency there. I will file a new patch to propose a better solution that still gives us the flexibility of this patch, but centralizes everything at k8s-test-infra
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.
CLIENT_GEN_VERSION ?= v0.26.1 | ||
CONTROLLER_GEN_VERSION ?= v0.9.2 | ||
GOLANGCI_LINT_VERSION ?= v1.52.0 | ||
MOQ_VERSION ?= v0.3.4 |
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.
I would still remove them from here and only specify them in the Dockerfile. What motivation is there for keeping them defined here?
If these are "real" dependencies, then we should manage them using something else so that we can better manage the update lifecycle.
No description provided.