netbox-chart icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
netbox-chart copied to clipboard

Main branch is not default

Open zakkg3 opened this issue 1 year ago • 8 comments

dismiss this and read the next comment.

Values files specify the need for keys on the existingSecret, but "napalm_password" is not there and the pod does not start if this is missing.

  Warning  FailedMount             85s (x2 over 3m27s)   kubelet                  MountVolume.SetUp failed for volume "secrets" : references non-existent secret key: napalm_password

zakkg3 avatar Feb 01 '24 16:02 zakkg3

I found the problem is that the default branch here is not main and you land by default on dev branch so the 5.0.0 chart which is not published.

The latest we can use is 4.1.1 and this is on main branch, wich is not the main one. o,0

very confusing, And I am pretty sure I am not the first one misled by this.

I guess the most sane would be to set main as the default branch and all this will be solved, like in every single reasonable repo

zakkg3 avatar Feb 01 '24 17:02 zakkg3

Happened to us :(

tpzumezawa avatar Feb 03 '24 08:02 tpzumezawa

Yeah I could do that, but it's a double-edged sword. People contributing PRs would target the wrong branch and end up with wasted work/time fixing things that are already fixed, or having to redo their changes because what they're targeting has changed. GitHub unfortunately makes this very difficult.

bootc avatar Feb 03 '24 12:02 bootc

Based on the new release workflow, I think it is fine to drop the master branch and rename develop to main. The complete history is still part of the main branch, and the tags keep the stable git HEAD available. What do you think @netbox-community/netbox-chart-maintainers?

LeoColomb avatar Jun 13 '24 11:06 LeoColomb

Based on the new release workflow, I think it is fine to drop the master branch and rename develop to main. The complete history is still part of the main branch, and the tags keep the stable git HEAD available. What do you think @netbox-community/netbox-chart-maintainers?

Yeah, makes sense to just use once since we've got a just-in-time thing going now. That said, maybe it makes sense to merge develop over to main, and get rid of develop? It would signal better how the current workflow is, IMHO.

RangerRick avatar Jun 13 '24 15:06 RangerRick

I believe that is the same, with a merge step in addition 😅 (there is no main at the moment)

LeoColomb avatar Jun 13 '24 16:06 LeoColomb

Oops I meant master in this case, not main.

RangerRick avatar Jun 13 '24 17:06 RangerRick

Since we've moved to a more dynamic workflow in general (single branch for release -- currently develop -- and then everything comes from PRs) I will fix this when 5.0.0 rolls out for real.

RangerRick avatar Jul 22 '24 14:07 RangerRick

FYI, 5.0.0 is merged to develop, and GitHub has been updated to treat develop as the main branch. The old master branch has been archived. Marking as closed.

RangerRick avatar Dec 18 '24 22:12 RangerRick