You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
First off, thanks for being a part of the Argo CD Operator community. We appreciate everyone's contribution and involvement in making this project what it is today!
As you all are aware, this project has introduced the Argo CD CRD as a part of the argoproj.io group from the very beginning, and we have been maintaining it as is ever since.
As a part of the v0.8.0 release we had to introduce breaking changes to the Argo CD API. There were multiple reasons for doing this, ranging from staying in sync with upstream Argo CD's deprecation of resource.customizations to needing to simplify the operator's SSO provider configuration options.
Since there were breaking changes involved in the API, we bumped the Argo CD API version from v1alpha1 to v1beta1. This change while seemingly unavoidable has advanced the entire argoproj.io group to v1beta1 version, causing a separate issue. It is worth noting that the argoproj.io group is owned by the maintainers of the argoproj project. It also contains a number of other CRDs including AppProject and Application (among others) which are deployed by the upstream Argo projects. and are still at version v1alpha1.
As such, advancing the argoproj.io group to v1beta1 has caused some confusion within the community, raising questions about whether these CRDs are no longer being supported since they are currently missing from the v1beta1 version of the group.
After some internal discussions we came to the conclusion that possibly a better way to move forward would be to move the Argo CD (and possibly ArgoCDExport) APIs into a new group that would be separate from the Argoproj project, so that we are able to have more control over how to progress with this API in the future
We would like to hear from the community as well, since you are all users of this API. Please use this issue to make your thoughts known if you have specific objections to this change, or have other thoughts about this
Thanks in advance!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi all
First off, thanks for being a part of the Argo CD Operator community. We appreciate everyone's contribution and involvement in making this project what it is today!
As you all are aware, this project has introduced the Argo CD CRD as a part of the
argoproj.io
group from the very beginning, and we have been maintaining it as is ever since.As a part of the v0.8.0 release we had to introduce breaking changes to the Argo CD API. There were multiple reasons for doing this, ranging from staying in sync with upstream Argo CD's deprecation of
resource.customizations
to needing to simplify the operator's SSO provider configuration options.Since there were breaking changes involved in the API, we bumped the Argo CD API version from
v1alpha1
tov1beta1
. This change while seemingly unavoidable has advanced the entireargoproj.io
group tov1beta1
version, causing a separate issue. It is worth noting that theargoproj.io
group is owned by the maintainers of theargoproj
project. It also contains a number of other CRDs includingAppProject
andApplication
(among others) which are deployed by the upstream Argo projects. and are still at versionv1alpha1
.As such, advancing the
argoproj.io
group tov1beta1
has caused some confusion within the community, raising questions about whether these CRDs are no longer being supported since they are currently missing from thev1beta1
version of the group.After some internal discussions we came to the conclusion that possibly a better way to move forward would be to move the Argo CD (and possibly ArgoCDExport) APIs into a new group that would be separate from the Argoproj project, so that we are able to have more control over how to progress with this API in the future
We would like to hear from the community as well, since you are all users of this API. Please use this issue to make your thoughts known if you have specific objections to this change, or have other thoughts about this
Thanks in advance!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: