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

update runtime-spec v1.1.0 #771

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 1, 2024
Merged

Conversation

thaJeztah
Copy link
Member

@thaJeztah thaJeztah commented Sep 6, 2023

Update some dependencies to released versions;

go.mod: github.com/opencontainers/runtime-spec v1.1.0

full diff: opencontainers/runtime-spec@86290f6...v1.1.0

@thaJeztah
Copy link
Member Author

@kolyshkin @mrunalp ptal 🤗

@cyphar
Copy link
Member

cyphar commented Sep 14, 2023

Can we do a release without this change, and then another release with this change? The lack of a release with go.mod means that you cannot use go install to get a 1.0.2-compatible runtime-tool validator (0.9 doesn't have a go.mod so you pull the 1.1.0 spec which causes runtime-tools to think that it is a 1.1.0 spec validator). This is currently breaking umoci's CI, and will be an issue for historical users that need the older spec version.

@cyphar
Copy link
Member

cyphar commented Sep 14, 2023

Or, we can put the golang.org/x/sys update into a separate PR. I'll cherry-pick it to an update PR...

@thaJeztah thaJeztah changed the title update runtime-spec v1.1.0, golang.org/x/sys v0.1.0 update runtime-spec v1.1.0 Sep 14, 2023
@thaJeztah
Copy link
Member Author

OHMAN, I completely forgot v0.9.0 didn't have a go.mod

Or, we can put the golang.org/x/sys update into a separate PR. I'll cherry-pick it to an update PR...

At least that won't hurt; I opened #773

@thaJeztah thaJeztah marked this pull request as draft September 14, 2023 08:30
@thaJeztah
Copy link
Member Author

As to the runtime-spec version, that's a really tricky one, and puts us in a rather awkward spot if you want to have a release with a go.mod that also has a "somewhat sensible" version of the spec, because currently, it's neither v1.0.x nor v1.1.x, and it's using a version that was never released as part of a v1.0.x;

Looking at the v0.9.0 release, that's slightly better, as it uses a commit that's still v1.0.x (v1.0.1-57-g1722abf);

{
"ImportPath": "github.com/opencontainers/runtime-spec/specs-go",
"Comment": "v1.0.1-57-g1722abf",
"Rev": "1722abf79c2f8f2675f47367f827c6491472cf27"
},

Which is somewhere between v1.0.1 and v1.0.2 of the spec;

Looking at the first possible commit to tag with a go.mod included (go.mod was added in 0e5956d);

That already gives us a version of the spec that's a v1.1.x ("ish"), because it's ahead of v1.0.2 (the last v1.0.x release)

If you depend on the version in the spec source, then I wonder if any reasonable expectations can be deducted from that 🤔

So, I guess if the goal is to;

  • have a tagged version of runtime-tools
  • with a go.mod
  • that includes a v1.0.x version of the space (v1.0.2), and NOT a v1.1.x version

Then I THINK the only "real" solution would be to

  • create a (temporary) release branch that we fork of an older version
  • downgrade the version of the spec to v1.0.2
  • ^^ which may involve reverting some features that depend on v1.1.x of the spec (to be looked at)

The alternative would be to "move forward", and;

  • update the spec to v1.1.0
  • do a release (first release with a go.mod and v1.1.0 of the spec)

@thaJeztah thaJeztah marked this pull request as ready for review September 14, 2023 15:14
@cyphar
Copy link
Member

cyphar commented Sep 15, 2023

We could fork from 0.9 and release a 0.9.1 that "just" does the go.mod migration and upgrades to 1.0.2 (with cherry-picking if absolutely necessary). That way, we won't have to worry about reverting things from main and 0.10.0 could be a strict upgrade.

That being said, given that 0.9 was also a release that had a non-released spec version I think it's not too crazy to just say that 0.10 can similarly just be a fruity intermediate runtime-spec version in keeping with all of the other releases of runtime-tools, and we will stop doing that in future releases.

@cyphar cyphar mentioned this pull request Sep 15, 2023
@cyphar
Copy link
Member

cyphar commented Sep 15, 2023

Based on looking at the git logs, there was actually only one patch "needed" for us to support v1.0.2, so that approach seemed much simpler. See #774.

Copy link
Member

@cyphar cyphar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

On reflection, just doing this is a better idea.

Copy link
Contributor

@kolyshkin kolyshkin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@kolyshkin kolyshkin merged commit 6c9570a into opencontainers:master Oct 1, 2024
7 checks passed
@thaJeztah thaJeztah deleted the update_deps branch October 2, 2024 09:42
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