Update Changelog for Curated Packages Release #9368
Conversation
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
eks-distro-bot
added
the
size/L
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #9368 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 69.45% 69.45% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 672 672
Lines 49357 49357
==========================================
- Hits 34283 34280 -3
- Misses 13288 13290 +2
- Partials 1786 1787 +1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
|
||
| - Harbor `2.11.1` to `2.12.1` | ||
| - ADOT `0.41.1` to `0.42.0` | ||
| - The `logging` exporter is now [deprecated](https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-collector/pull/11037), users should update the config to the `debug` exporter instead |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there any reference on how they should perform this change in upstream docs or a specific comment?
| - The `logging` exporter is now [deprecated](https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-collector/pull/11037), users should update the config to the `debug` exporter instead | |
| - The `logging` exporter is now [deprecated](https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-collector/pull/11037), users should update the config to the `debug` exporter instead |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Added the reference link to debug exporter's README.
|
|
||
| #### Changed | ||
|
|
||
| - Harbor `2.11.1` to `2.12.1` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Doesn't this include fixing a bug with schema.json?
| @@ -0,0 +1,133 @@ | |||
| --- | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seems redundant to include as part of every release, wondering if we should consolidate somehow.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes this is across packages, I was thinking we add the new version .md file only if there are significant changes otherwise just rename old to new. What do you think? I can do separate PR for this across packages.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yea that sounds reasonable, or we probably don't even need to include version? We can explore restructuring this to point to upstream because that is what we do anyways
Description of changes:
Testing (if applicable):
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.