Skip to content

[providers-fab/v1-5] Synchronize build scripts with main#45591

Merged
potiuk merged 1 commit into
providers-fab/v1-5from
sync-build-scripts-to-main
Jan 12, 2025
Merged

[providers-fab/v1-5] Synchronize build scripts with main#45591
potiuk merged 1 commit into
providers-fab/v1-5from
sync-build-scripts-to-main

Conversation

@potiuk

@potiuk potiuk commented Jan 12, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

^ Add meaningful description above
Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information.
In case of fundamental code changes, an Airflow Improvement Proposal (AIP) is needed.
In case of a new dependency, check compliance with the ASF 3rd Party License Policy.
In case of backwards incompatible changes please leave a note in a newsfragment file, named {pr_number}.significant.rst or {issue_number}.significant.rst, in newsfragments.

@potiuk

potiuk commented Jan 12, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

This one synchronizes "pull_request_target" workflow changes with tip of the providers-fab/v1-5 branch

@potiuk potiuk changed the title Synchronize build scripts with main [providers-fab/v1-5] Synchronize build scripts with main Jan 12, 2025
@potiuk
potiuk requested review from eladkal and jscheffl January 12, 2025 14:10
@potiuk

potiuk commented Jan 12, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Same story as for v2-10-test -> that providers-fab/v1-5 branch also still has pull-request-target workflow and it needs to be removed.

@jscheffl jscheffl left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Same as previous PR - but hoping that not (many/any) patch cycles on this branch are needed.

@potiuk

potiuk commented Jan 12, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Same as previous PR - but hoping that not (many/any) patch cycles on this branch are needed.

Yeah. That one should be WAY easier to get green.

@eladkal

eladkal commented Jan 12, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Why do we need this change?
We don't have plans to cut another release feom this branch

@potiuk

potiuk commented Jan 12, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

We don't have plans to cut another release feom this branch

We might need to do it (because of security) - and I know of some security fixes that are coming to FAB.
I prefer to do it now - when I know exactly how to fix issues, because I've just done it for v2-10-test - rather than trying to remember it 3 weeks from now.

@potiuk
potiuk force-pushed the sync-build-scripts-to-main branch from df53339 to cae3417 Compare January 12, 2025 17:22
@potiuk potiuk added the legacy api Whether legacy API changes should be allowed in PR label Jan 12, 2025
@potiuk
potiuk force-pushed the sync-build-scripts-to-main branch 4 times, most recently from 46e0042 to 701bc98 Compare January 12, 2025 20:45
@potiuk
potiuk force-pushed the sync-build-scripts-to-main branch from 701bc98 to 36121cc Compare January 12, 2025 21:14
@potiuk
potiuk merged commit 7cd571b into providers-fab/v1-5 Jan 12, 2025
@potiuk
potiuk deleted the sync-build-scripts-to-main branch May 22, 2025 12:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

area:dev-tools legacy api Whether legacy API changes should be allowed in PR

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants