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

Radix-Tekton should be merged into radix-operator repo, and build, tagged and pushed together #1273

Open
Richard87 opened this issue Jan 27, 2025 · 2 comments

Comments

@Richard87
Copy link
Contributor

Richard87 commented Jan 27, 2025

Currently Radix-API sets the correct tekton and pipeline runner tags for new RadixJobs. Instead Radox-operator should control these, and they should be released together.

We should also use tagged versions when running them instead of master-latest

@satr
Copy link
Contributor

satr commented Feb 5, 2025

Radix-tekton is actually part of the radix-pipeline jobs. Extracting the radix-pipeline from the radix operator and merging it to a radix-tekton (with changing the repo name to e.g. radix-pipeline) might be more preferable:
Pros

  • Pipeline logic is not released when not-related radix-operator logic is released
  • No need to run extra jobs like prepare-pipeline of run-pipeline with providing back info through config maps
  • Image builders can be put to this repo to reduce maintanence cost
  • If/when pipeline is considered to run within Tekton pipeline, transition will be easier, with possibility to use Tekton workspaces with cloned sources
    Cons
  • Synced release and maintanance of multiple images

@emirgens emirgens added the 🤔 refinement needed This needs more details label Feb 17, 2025
@satr
Copy link
Contributor

satr commented Feb 18, 2025

After further evaluation I agree this is a reasonable trade-off to merge radix-tekton repo to the radix-operator, as it grown with extra logic like github properties and change analyses. It reduces amount of separate kube jobs, keeping same pipeline steps.

@emirgens emirgens removed the 🤔 refinement needed This needs more details label Feb 26, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants