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

Prepare 2024.3.1rc1 release #2275

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Mar 5, 2024
Merged

Conversation

marcelovilla
Copy link
Member

Reference Issues or PRs

What does this implement/fix?

Put a x in the boxes that apply

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds a feature)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing features not to work as expected)
  • Documentation Update
  • Code style update (formatting, renaming)
  • Refactoring (no functional changes, no API changes)
  • Build related changes
  • Other (please describe):

Testing

  • Did you test the pull request locally?
  • Did you add new tests?

Any other comments?

We still have some blockers for the next release but I want to update the docker image tags in develop so people can deploy from there to test.

@marcelovilla marcelovilla requested a review from dcmcand February 22, 2024 19:49
@@ -12,8 +12,8 @@
DEFAULT_GKE_RELEASE_CHANNEL = "UNSPECIFIED"

DEFAULT_NEBARI_DASK_VERSION = CURRENT_RELEASE
DEFAULT_NEBARI_IMAGE_TAG = CURRENT_RELEASE
DEFAULT_NEBARI_WORKFLOW_CONTROLLER_IMAGE_TAG = "2024.1.1"
DEFAULT_NEBARI_IMAGE_TAG = "2024.2.1rc2"
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@dcmcand In #2227 you did not have any changes for DEFAULT_NEBARI_IMAGE_TAG but I am assuming we do want to point to the latest RC in https://github.com/nebari-dev/nebari-docker-images, right? Otherwise we would be testing against older versions of the images.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I specified them in the nebari-config.yaml rather than here. Bu this should be fine as long as we change it back to CURRENT_RELEASE before the release

@@ -12,8 +12,8 @@
DEFAULT_GKE_RELEASE_CHANNEL = "UNSPECIFIED"

DEFAULT_NEBARI_DASK_VERSION = CURRENT_RELEASE
DEFAULT_NEBARI_IMAGE_TAG = CURRENT_RELEASE
DEFAULT_NEBARI_WORKFLOW_CONTROLLER_IMAGE_TAG = "2024.1.1"
DEFAULT_NEBARI_IMAGE_TAG = "2024.2.1rc2"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I specified them in the nebari-config.yaml rather than here. Bu this should be fine as long as we change it back to CURRENT_RELEASE before the release

):
rich.print("\n ⚠️ Warning ⚠️")
rich.print(
"-> Please run the [green]rm -rf stages[/green] so that we can regenerate an updated set of Terraform scripts for your deployment."
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This can cause trouble for people using local tf state. See #2271. I think just runnning nebari render should do the same thing here. Can we verify this is actually needed?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

At a minimum I think we should change this to mv stages stages.old or something similar. This messed me up recently. Luckily I was able to get stages back by trash-cli

Copy link
Member

@Adam-D-Lewis Adam-D-Lewis Feb 23, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For some context, this rm -rf was needed in the past when we deleted some files in stages due to deprecation (clearml.tf, prefect.tf, kbatch.tf). This was needed b/c running nebari render wouldn't overwrite/delete the files that were no longer part of nebari, but the rm -rf did work (assuming non local state).

@marcelovilla
Copy link
Member Author

@Adam-D-Lewis and @dcmcand thank you for the comments. I want us to discuss better ways to handle upgrades in the future, but for this release I have followed your advice and just added a message to backup the original rendered files.

@marcelovilla marcelovilla changed the title Prepare 2024.2.1rc1 release Prepare 2024.3.1rc1 release Mar 5, 2024
):
rich.print("\n ⚠️ Warning ⚠️")
rich.print(
"-> Please run [green]mv stages stages.old[/green] so that we can keep a backup of the original Terraform scripts and regenerate an updated set of them for your deployment."
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Take this comment or leave it, but I don't feel like even this is necessary for this release. I feel like this could be as simple as printing "upgrading to 2024.2.1" or something like that. I am still approving in case you decide to keep this, but I don't think we need it.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's probably not because we're not deprecating anything. I took your suggestion and incorporated it.

@marcelovilla marcelovilla merged commit 1e0c53e into develop Mar 5, 2024
24 of 27 checks passed
@marcelovilla marcelovilla deleted the prepare-2024.2.1rc1-release branch March 5, 2024 22:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants