release(prod): 2021.11.11.0-1, ECC concurrency, initFile robustness, and pktfwd rewrite #215
Conversation
test diag with new base image
bump upnp for testing
The packet forwarder actually requires the miner container to be able to accept connections on the hostname helium-miner before it will be able to start the concentrator. This adds a depends_on to not attempt to start the packet forwarder container until the miner container is up
fix: add depends on for packet forwarder
Bumps UPnP, config, diag and packet forwarder containers so they are now all using the same base image. We need to now test that it's actually smaller so will leave #182 open for now.
Bump to 2021.10.27.0_GA
Added documentation to the readme for quick start (#189)
Bump to 2021.10.29.0_GA
Bump to 2021.11.02.0_GA
rearrange readme
Bump diag and config
feat: bump GA to 2021.11.04.2
…1-10-0 release(testnet): GA 2021.11.10.0
…1-11-0 release(testnet): GA 2021.11.11.0
Partially fixes #208
Lock ECC usage and ensure initFile always returns.
Add tech support to CODEOWNERS
…rod/ecc-initFile-fixes
| depends_on: | ||
| - dbus-session | ||
| - diagnostics | ||
| environment: | ||
| - FIRMWARE_VERSION=2021.11.11.0 | ||
| - FIRMWARE_VERSION=2021.11.11.0-1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd like to ensure that this non standard version number layout doesn't cause any issues with diagnostics and config
Don't see why it would, but just in case
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What's the way we've done it in the past? 2021.11.11.0.1?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would have been 2021.11.11.1
I think your way is the best. Just want to make sure it doesn't cause any issues with anything. Can't see why it would in particular was just a thought
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We treat it as a string, so this really shouldn't cause any issues and it has passed QA.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@vpetersson we didn't QA it with this version number...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@KevinWassermann94 can you check some production devices to see that the version number hasn't caused any issues?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@shawaj Should be covered in the QC playbook already (correct me if i'm wrong @KevinWassermann94).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@shawaj I am waiting for the production to update.
@vpetersson We should add a term to the GA playbook that no further commits should be pushed to a PR without testing them on the testnet first
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@KevinWassermann94 we can solve that by signing off a particular commit hash.
marvinmarnold
changed the title
Including likely unnecessary patch to regions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am happy to sign this off, the only issue I am seeing on the testnet is NebraLtd/hm-pktfwd#67 which should not be a blocker.
This helps a significant amount of units
Why
masterandproductionhave diverged. This will put them back in parity. Warning, because of the drift, this PR requires extra attention before merging.How
Because the branches have diverged,
mastercannot be directly merged into production. This PR solves merge conflicts. It will need to be merged intoproductionand back-merged intomaster.-1also appended toFIRMWARE_VERSIONto indicate that it is distinct Nebra release using the same Helium version.References