Skip to content

feat: Support dynamic image repositories#818

Merged
Techassi merged 6 commits into
mainfrom
feat/support-dynamic-image-repositories
Apr 28, 2026
Merged

feat: Support dynamic image repositories#818
Techassi merged 6 commits into
mainfrom
feat/support-dynamic-image-repositories

Conversation

@Techassi
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@Techassi Techassi self-assigned this Apr 27, 2026
@Techassi Techassi moved this to Development: In Progress in Stackable Engineering Apr 27, 2026
@Techassi Techassi marked this pull request as ready for review April 27, 2026 13:58
@Techassi Techassi moved this from Development: In Progress to Development: Waiting for Review in Stackable Engineering Apr 27, 2026
sbernauer
sbernauer previously approved these changes Apr 27, 2026
@sbernauer sbernauer moved this from Development: Waiting for Review to Development: In Review in Stackable Engineering Apr 27, 2026
@sbernauer
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I'd argue this is a breaking change (you need to pass a new CLI flag or env var) and should be noted in the changelog

@Techassi Techassi added this pull request to the merge queue Apr 28, 2026
@Techassi Techassi moved this from Development: In Review to Development: Done in Stackable Engineering Apr 28, 2026
Merged via the queue into main with commit 3a75aaf Apr 28, 2026
12 checks passed
@Techassi Techassi deleted the feat/support-dynamic-image-repositories branch April 28, 2026 11:18
@lfrancke lfrancke moved this from Development: Done to Acceptance: In Progress in Stackable Engineering May 6, 2026
@lfrancke
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

lfrancke commented May 6, 2026

This does not have release notes. I assume the parent will. Those should then mention the breaking change. Are all operators the same? As in: Is it a breaking change in all of them?

@Techassi
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Techassi commented May 19, 2026

I assume the parent will. Those should then mention the breaking change.

Yes, I will add release notes to stackabletech/issues#716.

Are all operators the same? As in: Is it a breaking change in all of them?

Yes, all. The core operators also have it even tho they technically don't need the argument. We could customize the CLI if we really want to avoid adding an used CLI argument. I didn't do this as part of the initial work, as it already took long enough to be done.

EDIT: Here are the release notes: stackabletech/issues#716 (comment)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

Status: Acceptance: In Progress

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants