Skip to content
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

cadvisor/runc updates #16419

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Sep 19, 2017
Merged

Conversation

sjenning
Copy link
Contributor

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. label Sep 18, 2017
@deads2k
Copy link
Contributor

deads2k commented Sep 18, 2017

I thought you were planning to bump, not pick.

@sjenning
Copy link
Contributor Author

@deads2k looked fairly impossible as a cadvisor bump would pull tons of new/renamed deps and cause conflicts.

google/cadvisor@92cca44
google/cadvisor@cfb16f1
google/cadvisor@8ba1845
google/cadvisor@20bd275
google/cadvisor@35de579

Turns out the functionality we were after could be obtained in a small number of picks.

@derekwaynecarr
Copy link
Member

@sjenning - the picks are fine, we can bump to kube 1.8 release version of cAdvisor when that rebase happens as that had a lot of side-effects.

Can you see if we should take any of the following as well:

google/cadvisor#1706
google/cadvisor#1681
google/cadvisor#1679

Thanks!

@deads2k
Copy link
Contributor

deads2k commented Sep 18, 2017

@sjenning - the picks are fine, we can bump to kube 1.8 release version of cAdvisor when that rebase happens as that had a lot of side-effects.

@sjenning since you're tried this, does this cause godep armageddon with the dockerregistry

@derekwaynecarr
Copy link
Member

@deads2k - when doing this in kube 1.8, it caused issues with a name change of a dependency, see: kubernetes/kubernetes#51751 ; i will defer to seth on what he found in origin.

@deads2k
Copy link
Contributor

deads2k commented Sep 18, 2017

@deads2k - when doing this in kube 1.8, it caused issues with a name change of a dependency, see: kubernetes/kubernetes#51751 ; i will defer to seth on what he found in origin.

Yeah, I'm going to assume that kube made it through, but if something like our dockerregistry requires conflicting levels it can severely hamper pulling that level into openshift. I'd like to get in front of openshift specific problems that are coming with a rebase.

@sjenning
Copy link
Contributor Author

pulled in google/cadvisor#1706

google/cadvisor#1679 (google/cadvisor#1681 is just the 0.26 pick) already came in on the last kube bump

@derekwaynecarr
Copy link
Member

/approve
/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Sep 19, 2017
@openshift-merge-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: derekwaynecarr, sjenning

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these OWNERS Files:

You can indicate your approval by writing /approve in a comment
You can cancel your approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Sep 19, 2017
@openshift-merge-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants