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

simplify and optimize release process #407

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 25, 2023
Merged

simplify and optimize release process #407

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 25, 2023

Conversation

aead
Copy link
Member

@aead aead commented Oct 25, 2023

This commit simplifies and optimizes the release process:

  • No longer build binaries for:
    • linux/s390x (not used)
    • linux/ppc64le (not used)
    • darwin/amd64 (apple has moved to arm64)
  • No longer build containers for:
    • linux/s390x (not used)
    • linux/ppc64le (not used)
  • Upgrade release container image to ubi-9
  • Simplify dev container build

If users really want linux/s390x or linux/ppc64le we can add these targets again. However, orgs running such infra most probably run their own registry and users can still build images for these os/arch from the docker file using docker build -f Dockerfile .

harshavardhana
harshavardhana previously approved these changes Oct 25, 2023
shtripat
shtripat previously approved these changes Oct 25, 2023
This commit simplifies and optimizes the release process:
 - No longer build binaries for:
   - linux/s390x (not used)
   - linux/ppc64le (not used)
   - darwin/amd64 (apple has moved to arm64)
 - No longer build containers for:
   - linux/s390x (not used)
   - linux/ppc64le (not used)
 - Upgrade release container image to ubi-9
 - Simplify dev container build

If users really want linux/s390x or linux/ppc64le
we can add these targets again. However, orgs running
such infra most probably run their own registry and the
users can still build images for these os/arch from the
docker file using `docker build -f Dockerfile .`

Signed-off-by: Andreas Auernhammer <[email protected]>
@klauspost
Copy link
Contributor

Why kill CodeQL?

@aead
Copy link
Member Author

aead commented Oct 25, 2023

Based on all the reports it generated it only should false positives. Usually things like filepath.Join issues for "untrusted input" but args were always verified by the API handlers. On the other side, regular go linters (static-lint a.o.) catched actual issues that codeql did not spot... From running it IIRC ~2y it has not been proven useful in this case. @klauspost

@aead aead merged commit 246de8a into master Oct 25, 2023
7 checks passed
@aead aead deleted the opt-release branch October 25, 2023 08:34
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.

4 participants