> I would argue we've done a pretty good job at maintaining backwards
> compat in the CRDs, which has added a lot of extra heavy lifting by
> Houston at times.
Agreed, for sure. To be super clear - I'm not trying to imply blame or
laxness or anything like that. I think it's been good judgement
thr
Thanks for bringing this up Jason, I think it's definitely something we
need to plan for. I've also had people ask me personally if it's ok to use
in Production, even though it's in "beta" state, so I think the concern is
valid.
Mike we do have a Version compatibility matrix for both Solr and
Kube
On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 9:43 AM Timothy Potter wrote:
> Also, we should draw a hard line in the sand on which versions of Solr
> the 1.0 operator supports! It'll likely be one of the later 8.x
> versions.
>
In addition to this, I think we will need to be aware of what versions of
Kubernetes each
It's close but I don't think it is quite ready for 1.0. However, I
would argue we've done a pretty good job at maintaining backwards
compat in the CRDs, which has added a lot of extra heavy lifting by
Houston at times.
Mainly the compat breaks were due to removing features added early in
the proje
Hey all,
Houston's email thread from earlier this week got me thinking: is
solr-operator stable enough and ready for a 1.0 release?
Deferring the 1.0 release (and keeping our Kubernetes CRDs versioned
at "v1beta1") has been convenient for development up to this point, as
changes can be made witho
