revert adding PullImageResponse.image_id to CRI API#137574
Conversation
|
This issue is currently awaiting triage. If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the The DetailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: SergeyKanzhelev The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
ffc9f05 to
9f73dfc
Compare
|
LGTM, I agree let's enforce with critest |
|
this is how it looks for containerd: kubernetes-sigs/cri-tools#2004 CI will run it on CRI-O to check what we see there |
|
/lgtm |
|
LGTM label has been added. DetailsGit tree hash: 297f3eb34943e4d34c8ca40075a241c5bd84efd1 |
|
@SergeyKanzhelev: The following test failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR. DetailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
|
/retest-required |
revert adding PullImageResponse.image_id to CRI API
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
/kind cleanup
revert of #137217, while keeping a stronger meaning of a field.
What this PR does / why we need it:
Containerd was compliant, CRI-O is updated. We do not want all runtimes to return two identical fields to make cri-dockerd compatible, it is best if cri-dockerd will be fixed.
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?