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

docs: Add a Gatekeeper-Kubernetes compatibility matrix to the release… #3664

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

KayenM
Copy link

@KayenM KayenM commented Oct 25, 2024

What this PR does / why we need it:

A compatibility table would be helpful to Gatekeeper users who are using non-supported versions of Kubernetes.

Gatekeeper’s support policy is that it ensures compatibility of currently supported Gatekeeper versions with currently supported Kubernetes versions. Gatekeeper supports n-1 minor release versions where n is the current release. This matrix assumes that at any point in time where there is overlap between a supported version of Gatekeeper and a supported version of Kubernetes, they will be compatible.

This table was created by checking overlap between supported versions of GK and Kubernetes, with the dates defined in this spreadsheet.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, using fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when the PR gets merged):
Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer: This addition was discussed in this GitHub discussion thread. Please let me know if any changes are needed, thank you!

@KayenM KayenM requested a review from a team as a code owner October 25, 2024 16:42
@KayenM KayenM marked this pull request as draft October 25, 2024 16:42
management page.

A compatibility matrix would be helpful to Gatekeeper users who are using
non-supported versions of Kubernetes.

Gatekeeper’s support policy is that it ensures compatibility of currently
supported Gatekeeper versions with currently supported Kubernetes versions.
Gatekeeper supports n-1 minor release versions where n is the current release.
This matrix assumes that at any point in time where there is overlap between a
supported version of Gatekeeper and a supported version of Kubernetes, they
will be compatible.

Signed-off-by: KayenM <[email protected]>
@KayenM KayenM marked this pull request as ready for review October 25, 2024 17:24
@ritazh
Copy link
Member

ritazh commented Oct 26, 2024

Thank you for adding this @KayenM!

Do you think maybe moving the table to a new page e.g. kubernetes-versions under Architecture similar to https://open-policy-agent.github.io/gatekeeper/website/docs/opa-versions would be better for discovery?

@KayenM
Copy link
Author

KayenM commented Oct 27, 2024

Thank you for adding this @KayenM!

Do you think maybe moving the table to a new page e.g. kubernetes-versions under Architecture similar to https://open-policy-agent.github.io/gatekeeper/website/docs/opa-versions would be better for discovery?

Hey @ritazh, yes for sure, thanks for pointing me to that! I can modify this PR to make a new page very similar to OPA Versions compatibility. I can also change the matrix to be a 2-column table as it would be easier to maintain going forward.

@KayenM
Copy link
Author

KayenM commented Oct 27, 2024

I've moved the table to a new page in the Gatekeeper website docs for better discovery.


| Gatekeeper Version | Kubernetes Version |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
| `v3.17` | `v1.28`,`v1.29`, `v1.30`, `v1.31` |
Copy link
Member

@sozercan sozercan Oct 28, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is great as a snapshot in time. Unfortunately, unless this is part of the release CI, it will go out of date quickly as new GK and K8s versions are released. Can we automate creation of this table?

Copy link
Member

@sozercan sozercan Oct 28, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

similar example: #3537

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not sure if @KayenM wants to take this on as a first time contributor. how about we get this PR merged first, then create a separate issue to track? and if @KayenM or others want to volunteer for it, they can work on the follow up?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hey thank you both! Sorry for the delay here.

That's a great point @sozercan, I'd be happy to add that feature as part of this change or after this is merged. It might take me a bit longer to complete if that's alright (end of November)?

@ritazh
Copy link
Member

ritazh commented Oct 30, 2024

@KayenM can you pls also add the changes to https://github.com/open-policy-agent/gatekeeper/tree/master/website/versioned_docs each version doc should go up to that GK version.

@KayenM
Copy link
Author

KayenM commented Nov 3, 2024

@KayenM can you pls also add the changes to https://github.com/open-policy-agent/gatekeeper/tree/master/website/versioned_docs each version doc should go up to that GK version.

For sure, thanks for pointing that out! I've amended my commit to make the change to the versioned docs.

Copy link
Member

@ritazh ritazh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Summary:

For improved discovery, this moves the matrix from the release management
file in the Gatekeeper repo, to the Gatekeeper website under the Architecture
heading. For better readability and simpler maintenance, instead of using a
matrix, we are using a 2 column table. This way, the team won't need to add a
new row and column to the matrix for each new release.

Reviewers: ritazh

Signed-off-by: KayenM <[email protected]>
@KayenM
Copy link
Author

KayenM commented Nov 4, 2024

LGTM

Thank you! I fixed a typo I made in the 3.6 version docs caught by the last deploy workflow, it needs another approval to be rerun.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants