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

feat(csi): bump up csi provisioner to v3.5.0 and other updates #457

Closed
wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

vharsh
Copy link
Member

@vharsh vharsh commented Jun 28, 2023

Reason:

  • v1 CSIStorageCapacity is GA since K8s 1.24 and in csi-provisioner 3.2.0 and above.
  • In K8s 1.27 v1beta1/CSIStorageCapacity has been removed, so bumping this up will enable zfs-localpv to run on K8s 1.27 & above.

Pull Request template

Why is this PR required? What issue does it fix?:

  • v1beta1/CSIStorageCapacity has been removed from Kubernetes 1.27 and v1/CSIStorageCapacity has been Generally Available since 1.24.

What this PR does?:

  • bump up the versions of csi-provisioner to 3.5.0 from 3.0.0
  • bump up other CSI sidecar versions
  • bump up CI action specs
  • update rbac permissions

Does this PR require any upgrade changes?:

  • should not require specific upgrade changes

If the changes in this PR are manually verified, list down the scenarios covered::

  • BDD tests seem to pass for this changeset

Any additional information for your reviewer? :

Checklist:

Reason:

- v1 CSIStorageCapacity is GA since K8s 1.24 and in csi-provisioner
  3.2.0 and above.
- In K8s 1.27 v1beta1/CSIStorageCapacity has been removed, so bumping
  this up will enable zfs-localpv to run on K8s 1.27 & above.

Signed-off-by: Harsh Vardhan <[email protected]>
@vharsh vharsh self-assigned this Jun 28, 2023
@vharsh vharsh changed the title feat(csi): bump up csi provisioner to v3.2.0 feat(csi): bump up csi provisioner to v3.2.0 and other updates Jul 22, 2023
@vharsh vharsh changed the title feat(csi): bump up csi provisioner to v3.2.0 and other updates feat(csi): bump up csi provisioner to v3.5.0 and other updates Jul 22, 2023
@vharsh vharsh requested a review from niladrih July 22, 2023 16:44
@avishnu
Copy link
Member

avishnu commented Jul 22, 2023

Is the below PR description correct?
"bump up the versions of csi-provisioner to 3.2.0 from 3.5.0"

Copy link
Member

@avishnu avishnu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Left a minor comment.
Lgtm

@niladrih niladrih added the pr/hold-merge hold the merge. label Jul 22, 2023
@vharsh
Copy link
Member Author

vharsh commented Jul 23, 2023

"bump up the versions of csi-provisioner to 3.2.0 from 3.5.0"

No @avishnu, the csi-provisioner version has been bumped up to 3.5.0 in line with other bump ups in other storage engines. Anything over 3.2.0(inclusive) i.e. [3.2.0, latest] is good to use.

[Edit]: refer to commit --> feat(deploy): update CSI sidecars & snapshot CRDs to latest

@niladrih
Copy link
Member

"bump up the versions of csi-provisioner to 3.2.0 from 3.5.0"

No @avishnu, the csi-provisioner version has been bumped up to 3.5.0 in line with other bump ups in other storage engines. Anything over 3.2.0(inclusive) i.e. [3.2.0, latest] is good to use.

[Edit]: refer to commit --> feat(deploy): update CSI sidecars & snapshot CRDs to latest

I edited the 3.2.0 from your PR comment to 3.0.0. I think it meant there was a commit updating the PR (which initially bumped provisioner to 3.2.0).

@avishnu
Copy link
Member

avishnu commented Jul 23, 2023

"bump up the versions of csi-provisioner to 3.2.0 from 3.5.0"

No @avishnu, the csi-provisioner version has been bumped up to 3.5.0 in line with other bump ups in other storage engines. Anything over 3.2.0(inclusive) i.e. [3.2.0, latest] is good to use.
[Edit]: refer to commit --> feat(deploy): update CSI sidecars & snapshot CRDs to latest

I edited the 3.2.0 from your PR comment to 3.0.0. I think it meant there was a commit updating the PR (which initially bumped provisioner to 3.2.0).

I meant the linguistic bit. Should it be "from" 3.0.0 "to" 3.5.0?

@vharsh
Copy link
Member Author

vharsh commented Jul 24, 2023

I meant the linguistic bit. Should it be "from" 3.0.0 "to" 3.5.0?

Right, the description is now updated by @niladrih

@vharsh
Copy link
Member Author

vharsh commented Jul 26, 2023

Closing this as the changes have been cherry-picked in #461

@vharsh vharsh closed this Jul 26, 2023
@vharsh vharsh deleted the issue_437 branch July 26, 2023 15:43
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
pr/hold-merge hold the merge.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Kubernetes 1.27 Deprecated CSIStorageCapacity: Storage.k8s.io/v1beta1: use v1.
3 participants