Hi all,
I agree that our current versioning schema doesn't make much sense, as
"minors" introduce pretty big features; even backward incompatibilities
are introduced in minor versions sometimes.
As the current plan is to have 4.20 by June, I think we should stick to
it and still have the nex
Pearl1594 commented on PR #56:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/pull/56#issuecomment-1900806045
Thank you so much @weizhouapache for testing!!!
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and
weizhouapache merged PR #56:
URL: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/pull/56
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-u
weizhouapache commented on PR #56:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/pull/56#issuecomment-1900804889
@Pearl1594
tested ok
```
root@cks-vpc-control-18d21c9d231:~# kubectl get svc
NAMETYPE CLUSTER-IP EXTERNAL-IP PORT(S)
As we get no major issues on it and we already voted to have this
design applied, is it alright to deploy this in the coming weeks?
On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 8:31 PM Daan Hoogland wrote:
>
> devs and users,
>
> back in august we had a small discussion about a new website design,
> led by Ivet [1].
weizhouapache commented on PR #56:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-kubernetes-provider/pull/56#issuecomment-1900486299
@Pearl1594
I tested with CKS cluster deployment and nginx deployment/service.
without this change
```
E0119 13:23:09.742798 1 controller.go:
I live in his backyard, will there as well.
On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 3:58 PM Wido den Hollander
wrote:
>
>
>
> Op 09/01/2024 om 13:45 schreef Ivet Petrova:
> > Dear community members,
> >
> > We managed to finalised the date for our joint event with the Ceph
> > community.
> > I am happy to share
devs, PMC,
as we are closing in on 4.19 I want to propose that we drop the 4. in
our versioning scheme. We've been discussing 5 but no real initiatives
have been taken. Nowadays big features go into our "minor"
dot-releases. In my opinion this warrants promoting those version to
the status of majo
