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

Remote Artifacts #615

Closed
otaviof opened this issue Feb 23, 2021 · 7 comments
Closed

Remote Artifacts #615

otaviof opened this issue Feb 23, 2021 · 7 comments
Labels
kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature.

Comments

@otaviof
Copy link
Member

otaviof commented Feb 23, 2021

Creating this placeholder issue to keep track of the feature #419 (Remote Artifacts).

@otaviof otaviof mentioned this issue Feb 24, 2021
3 tasks
@adambkaplan adambkaplan added this to the release-v0.4.0 milestone Mar 10, 2021
@adambkaplan adambkaplan added the kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. label Mar 10, 2021
@SaschaSchwarze0
Copy link
Member

@otaviof is there anything remaining for this issue ?

@sbose78
Copy link
Member

sbose78 commented Apr 22, 2021

Are you tracking API improvements in this one ?

@otaviof
Copy link
Member Author

otaviof commented Apr 28, 2021

@SaschaSchwarze0, @sbose78 sorry for the late reply :-) We could close this issue and open it up again later on, or even, create new issues as we need to discuss further API changes and feature enhances.

@adambkaplan
Copy link
Member

/close

Implemented in #616

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@adambkaplan: Closing this issue.

In response to this:

/close

Implemented in #616

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

@qu1queee
Copy link
Contributor

I would like to add that the remote artifacts is not fully implemented yet. The spec.sources does not support git at the moment, which is one of our most popular features. We should ensure that what we wrote in EP reflects our implementation.

Having all specifications implemented, will also allow us to move out of spec.source eventually. At the moment the API can be confusing when wondering about spec.source vs spec.sources , plus the current tribe knowledge, that spec.sources is half baked.

@qu1queee
Copy link
Contributor

@adambkaplan @otaviof we should re-open this one, and discuss at grooming when we think we should complete it. We should not lose track of the missing features.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants