Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
push image to multiple registry #1079
push image to multiple registry #1079
Changes from all commits
14c8292
254337a
60045e6
36673e6
d7e2841
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There is a problem here that the fluent-operator and fluent bit have different version, and in this action it use the tag of fluent-operator to build fluentbit images:
when we released fluent-operator v2.8.0, the fluentbit remains 2.2.2, but fluent-bit:v2.8.0 is built instead
![image](https://private-user-images.githubusercontent.com/18525465/333005065-d5a7e6ef-175a-4d5b-a2a1-00c6ee3d5ea1.png?jwt=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.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.2xDzI-PNrc7h3zKxeZSCbjxTQTJWGUFs58-B9rd5yHo)
and this is the cause of #1178
The make file should be used to build fluentbit images instead https://github.com/fluent/fluent-operator/blob/v2.8.0/Makefile#L3
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
cc @sarathchandra24 @wanjunlei @wenchajun @DouglasWillis1
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
hmm, let me know if my understanding is correct.
If we are releasing a tag suppose v2.8.0, it is building three images fluentd:v2.8.0, fluent-operator:v2.8.0 and fluent-bit:v2.8.0. As per the workflows, all the images are using tags to release new images.
Do we need to separate them; i.e. are these images having different build and release cycles?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@sarathchandra24 Yes, we need to separate them. The tag of this project should only be used to build fluent-operator while the fluentbit and fluentd have separate tags as defined in the makefile:
fluentbit:
https://github.com/fluent/fluent-operator/blob/master/Makefile#L3
fluend:
https://github.com/fluent/fluent-operator/blob/master/Makefile#L5
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do I need to add a GitHub token to this repo's action secret?
But that token cannot start with Github, maybe we can change it to GH_TOKEN ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As far as I know of I am using GITHUB_TOKEN only which will restrict permissions defined in the actions. I referred to the following document. I allowed the write permissions globally on a repo, and use this clause in actions
Let's check if this works! if not we can create a secret GH_TOKEN and use it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
all right, looks like GITHUB_TOKEN is created automatically for each action and I need to create one manually