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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

jsonnet: move boltdb-shipper configs set as compactor args to yaml config #5393

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Feb 21, 2022
Merged

jsonnet: move boltdb-shipper configs set as compactor args to yaml config #5393

merged 4 commits into from
Feb 21, 2022

Conversation

sandeepsukhani
Copy link
Contributor

@sandeepsukhani sandeepsukhani commented Feb 15, 2022 •
edited
Loading

What this PR does / why we need it:
Move some of the boltdb-shipper config set as compactor args to the yaml config file.
This is needed to keep the config consistent i.e set them using yaml instead of CLI args.

@sandeepsukhani sandeepsukhani requested a review from a team as a code owner February 15, 2022 10:21
@dannykopping
Copy link
Contributor

What this PR does / why we need it: Move some of the boltdb-shipper config set as compactor args to the yaml config file.

Why do we need this?

@sandeepsukhani
Copy link
Contributor Author

What this PR does / why we need it: Move some of the boltdb-shipper config set as compactor args to the yaml config file.

Why do we need this?

@dannykopping sorry, updated the PR description.

dannykopping
dannykopping approved these changes Feb 18, 2022
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@dannykopping dannykopping left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM; we may want to mention this change in the upgrade guide

@sandeepsukhani sandeepsukhani changed the title move boltdb-shipper configs set as compactor args to yaml config jsonnet: move boltdb-shipper configs set as compactor args to yaml config Feb 18, 2022
@sandeepsukhani
Copy link
Contributor Author

LGTM; we may want to mention this change in the upgrade guide

Updated the changelog entry which I guess would be looked at when doing a public release. To make it more reliable I think we should have github labels or some other way to call out such changes to help the person doing the release?

@dannykopping
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM; we may want to mention this change in the upgrade guide

Updated the changelog entry which I guess would be looked at when doing a public release. To make it more reliable I think we should have github labels or some other way to call out such changes to help the person doing the release?

I think the general process is to add it under "Main / Unreleased" in docs/sources/upgrading/_index.md, but I agree we could have something more robust. Maybe labels like patch, breaking, feature, etc.

@pull-request-size pull-request-size bot added size/S and removed size/M labels Feb 18, 2022
@sandeepsukhani sandeepsukhani merged commit ff21fb0 into grafana:main Feb 21, 2022
@dannykopping dannykopping mentioned this pull request Feb 28, 2022
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@dannykopping dannykopping dannykopping approved these changes

@KMiller-Grafana KMiller-Grafana Awaiting requested review from KMiller-Grafana

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
size/S
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@sandeepsukhani @dannykopping