Sponsored Content
Skip to content

Prepare / Tag v1.1.0 release #1052

Closed

Description

@thaJeztah

(related to https://github.com/containerd/containerd/pull/4357/files#r448837520)

Runc tagged a new release (v1.0.0-rc91), and is currently depending on a non-tagged version of the runtime-spec. With various distribution packagers requiring tagged releases, and with go modules encouraging consumers to packages to use tagged releases, I'm wondering if a new release should be tagged.

runc is currently consuming 237cc4f, (changes since v1.0.2: v1.0.2...237cc4f), but there's a couple more changes in master (237cc4f...master)

Are there pending pull requests that should be merged before tagging v1.0.3? (perhaps #1046 would be nice to have). tags should be "cheap" so, perhaps not a blocker for a v1.0.3, but suggestions welcome 🤗

@cyphar @crosbymichael @tianon @mrunalp @vbatts

Activity

  1. h-vetinari commented on Jul 2, 2020

    @h-vetinari
    Contributor

    Not to further hold up an already long process, but #1040 should also be very close to finished (just waiting for final review).

  2. AkihiroSuda commented on Jul 2, 2020

    @AkihiroSuda
    Member

    #1040 should be probably v1.0.4 or later

  3. thaJeztah commented on Jul 2, 2020

    @thaJeztah
    MemberAuthor

    Given that it's adding new features, #1040 should probably bump the minor version to stick with SemVer (so v1.1.0)

  4. thaJeztah commented on Jul 2, 2020

    @thaJeztah
    MemberAuthor

    Thinking of that, possibly #1046 warrants a "minor" version bump as well, as it's adding new functionality.

  5. changed the title [-]Prepare / Tag v1.0.3 release[/-] [+]Prepare / Tag v1.0.3 (or v1.1.0) release[/+] on Jul 2, 2020
  6. cyphar commented on Jul 2, 2020

    @cyphar
    Member

    Yeah, we should tag a 1.0.3. I would like to see #1046 merged (I don't think it makes sense to refer to it as a new feature -- it's just defining Go constants that were already defined by the spec -- though arguably the new hooks we added should've made the last release a 1.1.0). And yeah, #1040 should definitely wait -- I don't want to rush adding more logic to cgroup configuration until we're sure it makes sense.

  7. mskarbek commented on Jul 2, 2020

    @mskarbek

    @cyphar what more do you expect from croupv2 work?

  8. cyphar commented on Jul 2, 2020

    @cyphar
    Member

    @mskarbek We need to have at least one implementation of it so that we can be sure that the specification changes actually work on real systems, and if they don't work we should go back and fix issues we may find in the specification. In addition, it wouldn't hurt to talk to other container runtimes (such as LXC) to get their feedback since they've supported cgroupv2 for much longer than any OCI runtime.

    EDIT: Ignore this section, it's pretty much gibberish. I shouldn't write comments while I'm still half-awake...

    And looking at the PR right now, we also need to address how to deal with unknown configuration values. Currently it says that:

    Configuration unknown to the runtime MUST still be written to the relevant file.

    But also:

    The runtime MUST generate an error when the configuration refers to a cgroup controller that is not present or that cannot be enabled.

    Which could in theory conflict in the future if there is a controller that requires some extra setup other than writing its name to cgroup.controllers. We need to make sure we don't cause future headaches for ourselves while also allowing people to configure cgroupv2 controllers without needing endless runtime-spec updates (which is why I was on board with the current proposal and have discussed doing it this way off-line for some time).

    Remember, once something is in the runtime-spec we cannot remove it (without a major version bump) -- shoe-horning it in would be a mistake.

  9. AkihiroSuda commented on Jul 3, 2020

    @AkihiroSuda
    Member

    The v1-to-v2 conversion convention can be cherry picked to v1.0.3?

  10. thaJeztah commented on Jul 3, 2020

    @thaJeztah
    MemberAuthor

    @AkihiroSuda which change is that? Do you have a specific PR?

    Looking at the changes since the last release; v1.0.2...8e2f17c, those all (at a glance) look ok for a (v1.0.3) "patch" release. Having that would help projects declare that they require >= v1.0.3 in their go.mod.

  11. cyphar commented on Jul 3, 2020

    @cyphar
    Member

    @thaJeztah I think he's referring to the v1-to-v2 conversion text that's in #1040 right now (in other words, should we take the conversion text -- which is something runtimes are already implementing -- and leave the whole unified thing for a separate release).

    @AkihiroSuda Since the text for the v1-to-v2 conversion is all gated by SHOULD and MAY, we could merge it now and change it in future releases without breaking backwards compatibility (since it's effectively just a recommendation or option for implementations, respectively). Do runc and crun already implement the semantics described (I haven't been following all of the cgroupv2 work in both projects)?

  12. AkihiroSuda commented on Jul 3, 2020

    @AkihiroSuda
    Member

    Do runc and crun already implement the semantics described (I haven't been following all of the cgroupv2 work in both projects)?

    The v1-to-v2 conversion is already implemented, but the pure unified struct is not.

  13. thaJeztah commented on Jul 3, 2020

    @thaJeztah
    MemberAuthor

    Thanks for clarifying, yes that sounds reasonable

  14. giuseppe commented on Jul 3, 2020

    @giuseppe
    Member

    And yeah, #1040 should definitely wait -- I don't want to rush adding more logic to cgroup configuration until we're sure it makes sense.

    I'd prefer if it has not to wait so much longer, without #1040 the cgroup v2 support is limited to the same features present in cgroup v1

  15. rhatdan commented on Jul 8, 2020

    @rhatdan
    Contributor
  16. 28 remaining items

  17. h-vetinari commented on Dec 19, 2022

    @h-vetinari
    Contributor

    runtime-spec releases really are a sisyphean story...

    There's a bunch of high-quality PRs that would suggest themselves for inclusion, but perhaps the current state of the repo should just be released to finally provide a new baseline, and then focus on getting those PRs merged for another release that's similarly just cut without a lot of ceremony?

    It's a pity for those features, but it seems we're stuck in an infinite "just these couple more PRs before we release" cycle.

  18. AkihiroSuda commented on Jan 24, 2023

    @AkihiroSuda
    Member

    Let's move this forward

  19. pinned this issue on Feb 1, 2023
  20. added this to the v1.1.0 milestone on Feb 1, 2023
  21. h-vetinari commented on Mar 17, 2023

    @h-vetinari
    Contributor

    RC has been live for 6 weeks - is there anything in particular that's still necessary to happen for a release?

  22. AkihiroSuda commented on Mar 17, 2023

    @AkihiroSuda
    Member

    RC has been live for 6 weeks - is there anything in particular that's still necessary to happen for a release?

    #1130 (comment)

  23. AkihiroSuda commented on Mar 28, 2023

    @AkihiroSuda
    Member

    Proposal for releasing v1.1.0-rc.2:

  24. utam0k commented on Mar 30, 2023

    @utam0k
    Member

    Can 1.1.0 include these at a minimum? I am not talking about the next rc.2.

  25. AkihiroSuda commented on May 22, 2023

    @AkihiroSuda
    Member

    Proposal for v1.1.0-rc.3

    This should be the last RC for v1.1.0.

  26. AkihiroSuda commented on Jun 21, 2023

    @AkihiroSuda
    Member

    If there is no objection, I'd like to propose releasing v1.1 GA very soon.

  27. utam0k commented on Jun 22, 2023

    @utam0k
    Member

    👍

  28. AkihiroSuda commented on Jun 26, 2023

    @AkihiroSuda
    Member
  29. unpinned this issue on Jul 22, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions