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

Release 3.0.1 #489

Conversation

machacekondra
Copy link

Release 3.0.1

Signed-off-by: Ondra Machacek <omachace@redhat.com>
@machacekondra machacekondra changed the title Release 3 0 1 Release 3.0.1 Mar 20, 2024
@alinabuzachis alinabuzachis requested a review from mariolenz March 20, 2024 13:34
Copy link
Contributor

Signed-off-by: Ondra Machacek <omachace@redhat.com>
The content_build specify the default value for bus to 0, but it don't
set it for the documentation, so this commit update the doc manually.

Signed-off-by: Ondra Machacek <omachace@redhat.com>
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 20, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 34.20%. Comparing base (010fef0) to head (e89927e).

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##           stable-3     #489      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     34.18%   34.20%   +0.02%     
============================================
  Files           143      143              
  Lines         11040    11032       -8     
  Branches       2291     2279      -12     
============================================
  Hits           3774     3774              
+ Misses         7266     7258       -8     
Flag Coverage Δ
sanity 34.20% <ø> (+0.02%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@machacekondra machacekondra requested a review from bardielle March 20, 2024 14:34
Copy link
Contributor

Copy link
Contributor

Merge Failed.

This change or one of its cross-repo dependencies was unable to be automatically merged with the current state of its repository. Please rebase the change and upload a new patchset.

Copy link
Contributor

Copy link
Collaborator

@mariolenz mariolenz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

149 changed files is a lot, so take my approval with a grain of salt ;-)

@mariolenz mariolenz mentioned this pull request Mar 20, 2024
@GomathiselviS
Copy link
Contributor

Everything appears good. However, I would prefer this PR to exclusively contain the release-related modifications. Would it be possible to split this PR, moving the module and documentation changes to a separate one? Once the other PR is merged, we can rebase this release PR. @mariolenz @alinabuzachis Your thoughts?

@alinabuzachis
Copy link
Collaborator

Everything appears good. However, I would prefer this PR to exclusively contain the release-related modifications. Would it be possible to split this PR, moving the module and documentation changes to a separate one? Once the other PR is merged, we can rebase this release PR. @mariolenz @alinabuzachis Your thoughts?

Any changes to the modules are the reflection of the content_builder's changes. As far as I know, documentation regeneration is part of the prep release PR as a consequence of plugins regeneration. We used to include all these in a prep release PR ( for example: #451)

@machacekondra
Copy link
Author

machacekondra commented Mar 21, 2024

The relevant changes are in specific commit, but in single PR, so all relevant changes will be nicely seen in git history. But if needed it may be split into two PRs. But I think it's not an issue here. The issue here is that we don't which content_builder commit was used to do this release I think that would simplify the review a lot, because we would have PRs like bump to content_builder 1.0.x. So I think this is a good time to talk about versioning the content_builder, to make the releases more predictable.

@GomathiselviS
Copy link
Contributor

The relevant changes are in specific commit, but in single PR, so all relevant changes will be nicely seen in git history. But if needed it may be split into two PRs. But I think it's not an issue here. The issue here is that we don't which content_builder commit was used to do this release I think that would simplify the review a lot, because we would have PRs like bump to content_builder 1.0.x. So I think this is a good time to talk about versioning the content_builder, to make the releases more predictable.

My request to split this PR is aimed at enhancing the clarity regarding the intent and scope of these modifications for the stakeholders. While this request is optional, I would prefer to adopt it for future changes. Additionally, including a changelog that outlines how the alterations in content_builder have influenced module and documentation generation would facilitate future reference in the git history. Considering versioning for content_builder is also a valuable aspect that we can address as we proceed with the release process with the current changes.

Signed-off-by: Ondra Machacek <omachace@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Ondra Machacek <omachace@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Ondra Machacek <omachace@redhat.com>
Copy link
Contributor

@mariolenz
Copy link
Collaborator

Since there are three approvals: Is there any reason to not merge and release this?

@bardielle
Copy link
Collaborator

/lgtm
/approve

Copy link
Contributor

Build succeeded (gate pipeline).
https://ansible.softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/buildset/63839650c5c34c3ca519bbaebcc2d6ec

✔️ ansible-test-cloud-integration-vmware-rest SUCCESS in 14m 40s
✔️ build-ansible-collection SUCCESS in 11m 39s
✔️ tox-cloud-refresh-examples-vmware SUCCESS in 10m 58s
✔️ ansible-galaxy-importer SUCCESS in 5m 23s

@softwarefactory-project-zuul softwarefactory-project-zuul bot merged commit 8e3e47d into ansible-collections:stable-3 Mar 25, 2024
11 checks passed
bardielle pushed a commit to bardielle/vmware.vmware_rest that referenced this pull request May 27, 2024
Release 3.0.1

Release 3.0.1

Reviewed-by: Mario Lenz <m@riolenz.de>
Reviewed-by: GomathiselviS
Reviewed-by: Alina Buzachis
bardielle pushed a commit to bardielle/vmware.vmware_rest that referenced this pull request May 29, 2024
Release 3.0.1

Release 3.0.1

Reviewed-by: Mario Lenz <m@riolenz.de>
Reviewed-by: GomathiselviS
Reviewed-by: Alina Buzachis
softwarefactory-project-zuul bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 2, 2024
Cherry pick all the changes from Release 3.0.1 (#489)

Release 3.0.1
Release 3.0.1
Reviewed-by: Mario Lenz m@riolenz.de
Reviewed-by: GomathiselviS
Reviewed-by: Alina Buzachis
SUMMARY


ISSUE TYPE


Bugfix Pull Request
Docs Pull Request
Feature Pull Request
New Module Pull Request

COMPONENT NAME

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Reviewed-by: Ondra Machacek <machacek.ondra@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Alina Buzachis
mikemorency pushed a commit to mikemorency/vmware.vmware_rest that referenced this pull request Aug 16, 2024
Cherry pick all the changes from Release 3.0.1 (ansible-collections#489)

Release 3.0.1
Release 3.0.1
Reviewed-by: Mario Lenz m@riolenz.de
Reviewed-by: GomathiselviS
Reviewed-by: Alina Buzachis
SUMMARY

ISSUE TYPE

Bugfix Pull Request
Docs Pull Request
Feature Pull Request
New Module Pull Request

COMPONENT NAME

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Reviewed-by: Ondra Machacek <machacek.ondra@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Alina Buzachis
(cherry picked from commit de4b81c)
mikemorency pushed a commit to mikemorency/vmware.vmware_rest that referenced this pull request Aug 19, 2024
Cherry pick all the changes from Release 3.0.1 (ansible-collections#489)

Release 3.0.1
Release 3.0.1
Reviewed-by: Mario Lenz m@riolenz.de
Reviewed-by: GomathiselviS
Reviewed-by: Alina Buzachis
SUMMARY

ISSUE TYPE

Bugfix Pull Request
Docs Pull Request
Feature Pull Request
New Module Pull Request

COMPONENT NAME

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Reviewed-by: Ondra Machacek <machacek.ondra@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Alina Buzachis
(cherry picked from commit de4b81c)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants