[keycloak-dev] Versioning - Keycloak Operator

[Peter Braun]

So does that mean that RH-SSO 7.3.0.GA was based on Keycloak 4.8.3 and
RH-SSO 7.4.0 will be based on Keycloak 8.0.0? If we based our Operator on
the Keycloak version (8.0.0) then the user wouldn't necessarily know what
RH-SSO version they would get (the operator can also install RH-SSO).

It sounds like we should base it on the RH-SSO version then, so the
Operator would be v7.4.0 which tells the user that they can either get
RH-SSO 7.4.0.GA or Keycloak 8.0.0 from it.

Does that make sense?



On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 11:34 AM Stian Thorgersen <sthorger at redhat.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 10:10, David Ffrench <dffrench at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > 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?
> >
>
> Yes/no ;)
>
> RH-SSO has two versions. The product version (7.3.0.GA for example) and
> the
> underlying productized Keycloak version (4.8.3.Final-redhat-0001). RH-SSO
> 7.4.0.GA will be based on the latest Keycloak release at the time (this
> will most likely be 8.0.0, so would be 8.0.0-redhat-0001). For RH-SSO micro
> releases these are based on Keycloak micros (so RH-SSO 7.3.2 was Keycloak
> 4.8.12 or something like that, can't remember the exact one). As a
> side-note we don't do micro releases of older Keycloak versions to the
> community, so branches and releases of these are not available to the
> public.
>
>
> >
> > 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
> >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> keycloak-dev mailing list
> keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>