Closed bear454 closed 6 years ago
@MaximilianMeister can it be merged in along with something consequential? I agree it's rather trivial, but since I'll be adding the same for GCE shortly, all the way back to 2.1... It seemed important to include ;-)
Maybe this warrants starting the release-3.1
branch for public cloud?
cc @jordimassaguerpla
@bear454 : We need a bsc number to port fixes to this branch. I would say, if this goes along with a bug fix, then I am fine to merge this after we have release 3.0, so this is shipped as a maintenance updates. Right now we are only merging P1 fixes, but we will open the gates again in short.
Have in mind, a bug fix could also be "enabling integration with Azure cluster".
@jordimassaguerpla I'm fine with waiting a while to merge this in... there's no rush on it.
I guess this is good to be merged since the release is out.
Oh, there's no bsc number. =/
vitoravelino commented 5 days ago
Oh, there's no bsc number. =/
This doesn't solve a "bug" - there is currently no known defect; just an effort to provide proper testing framework consistently across all environments; e.g. this is an enhancement but is not user-facing.
This doesn't solve a "bug" - there is currently no known defect; just an effort to provide proper testing framework consistently across all environments; e.g. this is an enhancement but is not user-facing.
I know, you already have my +1. I guess using enhancement#azure-spec
would solve the backport rule. Just guessing...
bear454 dismissed vitoravelino’s stale review
Well, github dismissed the review when I changed the commit message... I didn't do anything with reviews ;-)
@MaximilianMeister : It is ok to merge this one. Our package excludes files under spec directory and this can be useful when looking for regressions for new commits into 3.0 branch,
Backport of #584 .