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

Add bash script to help fork a release branch #1203

Merged

Conversation

simonbaird
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@simonbaird simonbaird marked this pull request as draft December 8, 2023 23:24
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 8, 2023

Codecov Report

Merging #1203 (e45bc08) into main (001d7ea) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1203   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   84.31%   84.31%           
=======================================
  Files          67       67           
  Lines        5338     5338           
=======================================
  Hits         4501     4501           
  Misses        837      837           
Flag Coverage Δ
acceptance 69.19% <ø> (ø)
generative 4.31% <ø> (ø)
integration 18.10% <ø> (ø)
unit 76.45% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

echo RHTAP application name: $RHTAP_APPLICATION_NAME

echo "Creating branch"
git checkout -b $BRANCH_NAME main
Copy link
Member

@joejstuart joejstuart Dec 9, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we need to make sure we have the latest upstream rev? git fetch upstream and git checkout -b $BRANCH_NAME upstream/main

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, maybe it's better not to rely on the human to have done it.

Copy link
Member

@zregvart zregvart left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks okay to me

exit 1
fi

BRANCH_NAME="redhat-${RELEASE_NAME}"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could we not call it redhat-*? What would be the downside of that?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it communicates to a random person looking at our repo what the branch is for. But other than that, not much.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How about release-* instead?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In the new version it's just v0.1-whatever, no prefix at all.

echo "Modifying pipelines"

for p in .tekton/*.yaml; do
# It would be nice to use yq here, but the formatting and indenting changes are too annoying
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why not format the YAML files in .tekton first then?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, it's a reasonable idea.

@simonbaird
Copy link
Member Author

This is no good actually. The component name is significant, since the pipeline definition file has a component name in it. So we have to copy the pipeline rather than modify it in place.

@simonbaird simonbaird force-pushed the cut-release-bash-script branch from 486bbe7 to 64a8772 Compare December 11, 2023 19:01
@simonbaird
Copy link
Member Author

Push a new revision where we let TAP create the pipeline definition.

Ignore all the TAP pipelines for license preamble checking, not just
the one specific one.
@simonbaird simonbaird force-pushed the cut-release-bash-script branch from 64a8772 to e1a5b6d Compare December 11, 2023 19:11
As mentioned in the comments, we could make this more automated in
future. For now it's mostly a set of instructions for the human.

The key part is to establish the procedure and the naming
conventions.
@simonbaird simonbaird force-pushed the cut-release-bash-script branch from e1a5b6d to e45bc08 Compare December 11, 2023 19:31
@simonbaird simonbaird marked this pull request as ready for review December 11, 2023 19:45
@simonbaird simonbaird merged commit e429725 into enterprise-contract:main Dec 11, 2023
10 of 11 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants