[keycloak-dev] Versioning - Keycloak Operator

[Stian Thorgersen]

On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 11:51, Peter Braun <pbraun at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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).
>

RH-SSO 7.4 will most likely be based on Keycloak 9.


>
> 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?
>

There should be two separate versions of the operator. One community which
will have version based on Keycloak, and another one for product, which
should be based on RH-SSO versions. There is also a difference in
maintenance/support for the Keycloak and the RH-SSO operator. The Keycloak
operator will be released together with Keycloak, with no micro updates
(unless there are critical bugs or CVEs), while the RH-SSO release has
micro releases for roughly a year.


>
>
>
> 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
>>
>