You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
A Chart version is not the same as an Application version though, Charts can have the appVersion with a set default, like a dagger engine version. But if the chart is not actually changing on each release, does the chart version really have to align with the dagger cli version?
I see Chart versions as the structure of how you deploy dagger, not that it is also having to match the dagger product version. There could be many versions where nothing changes in the chart, but dagger has had many updates. This is also why I thought charts have the concept of Version of the Chart and appVersion, which can also be provided which is a sort of default for something like values.engine.tag.
Or do you mean to align the appVersion property?
You can see many examples of this on Artifact hub, in some cases, Chart versions are way higher than the Product version, because they improved the chart, and it had nothing to do with the Product itself as such.
Having separate version streams causes a few headaches from a releasing point-of-view.
Even without those head-aches, without the same versions in place, there's an assumption that you can mix-match engine and helm chart versions freely - you can use X engine and Y helm chart. While that might be the case for some helm charts, there's no guarantees that that would keep working - by having the same version number, it's made clearer that this is more required.
We currently don't release the helm chart separately at all - it's part of our release process for the entire engine, released in that same weekly/fortnightly cycle. One day, we might split those out, but if they're tied together, it makes sense to keep our versions tied IMO.
We did this with all SDKs in summer 2023:
We should do the same for the Helm chart (it's the only odd one out) and also start a changelog for it. As discussed here:
--oci-max-parallelism num-cpu
#7596 (comment)The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: