[cloudbuild] Build all images in a single step. #1891
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
release-note-none
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
size/S
✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-sigs-kueue canceled.
|
| - DOCKER_BUILDX_CMD=/buildx-entrypoint | ||
| - name: 'gcr.io/k8s-staging-test-infra/gcb-docker-gcloud:v20221214-1b4dd4d69a' | ||
| entrypoint: make | ||
| args: | ||
| - importer-image-push | ||
| env: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we are missing the IMAGE_REGISTRY variable here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It should be set from STAGING_IMAGE_REGISTRY
Lines 38 to 39 in ec3d9c8
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But we can switch to using IMAGE_REGISTRY in the debug and importer images and set that here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah right.
Well, the thing is that importer and debug images will never be in registry.k8s.io, whereas the main kueue image will.
Having the 2 registries as different variables theoretically allows you to run steps for images located in different places.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's hard to follow, let's keep a single var for now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe it's not worth the complication
/lgtm
/approve
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 055a4c983f03822524f81bf6bce4165773b9b381
|
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: alculquicondor, trasc The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
* [cloudbuild] Build all images in a single step. * [makefile] Use `STAGING_IMAGE_REGISTRY` only to default `IMAGE_REGISTRY` * [cloudbuild] Set `IMAGE_REGISTRY` instead of `STAGING_IMAGE_REGISTRY`
What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup
What this PR does / why we need it:
Build all images in a single cloudbuild step.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?