[keycloak-dev] Versioning - Keycloak Operator

[David Ffrench]

Hi Stian,

I agree with your assessment since all other sub-components within Keycloak
all use the same version. I would just like to clarify one point.

have the version identical to Keycloak upstream, and identical to RH-SSO
> downstream

I was under the impression these were on different versions. Keycloak 7.0.1
and RH-SSO 7.3.2? A follow on question, how long after Keycloak 8.0.0 is
release does the next version of RH-SSO get released and will this also be
8.0.0?

Thanks

DAVID FFRENCH

Principal software engineer, CLOUD SERVICES

Red Hat Waterford <https://www.redhat.com/>

Communications House, Cork Road

Waterford, Ireland

dffrench at redhat.com





On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 8:55 AM Sebastian Laskawiec <slaskawi at redhat.com>
wrote:

> Ok, you convinced me guys. Let's align it with Keycloak.
>
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 9:08 AM Jan Lieskovsky <jlieskov at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 8:02 PM Bruno Oliveira <bruno at abstractj.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Good afternoon,
> > >
> > > During our stand-up meeting today we discussed the versioning of the
> > > new Keycloak Operator. In summary, if the versioning should follow the
> > > same scheme as semantic versioning, or follow our continuous delivery
> > > model[1].
> > >
> > > The "old" Operator is actually on 1.9.4 and the new version should be
> > > 2.0.0. But if we use our current versioning scheme, that means a
> > > significant bump, for example, 8.0.0.
> > >
> >
> > +1 for version of the operator being aligned with the version of other
> > components
> > (server, adapters etc.), even if this will mean:
> >
> >    - Operator version will need initially to get bumped substantially to
> >    match the Keycloak server version,
> >    - Operator would need to be released together with other components
> this
> >    way (IOW any, even possible urgent Operator fixes would need to wait
> for
> >    N+1 server release).
> >
> > This makes more sense / is more consistent IMHO, than keeping the
> Operator
> > version as a separate one.
> > Besides that (as already mentioned) it removes the need in the future
> > (maybe often?) to clarify, which
> > Operator version matches which Keycloak server version.
> >
> > Just my two cents.
> >
> >
> > Thank you && Regards, Jan
> > --
> > Jan iankko Lieskovsky / Keycloak / RH-SSO Team
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I kind of know the answer :) But the team wanted to ask.
> > >
> > > [1] - https://www.keycloak.org/2019/04/versioning.html
> > >
> > > --
> > > - abstractj
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > keycloak-dev mailing list
> > > keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > keycloak-dev mailing list
> > keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
> >
> _______________________________________________
> keycloak-dev mailing list
> keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>