[keycloak-dev] Versioning - Keycloak Operator

Thu Nov 7 10:53:54 EST 2019

On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 16:49, David Ffrench <dffrench at redhat.com> wrote:

> Thanks Stian. I would agree with the word support.
>
> So I think we are all in agreement that the Keycloak Operators initial
> version should be 7.x.x to match the version of Keycloak included. Follow
> on question, should it be exactly 7.0.1 to match the version of Keycloak
> included? What then happens if there is a new release needed for the
> operator but not keycloak itself. This would then mean an operator version
> 7.0.2 matches Keycloak version 7.0.1.
>

Our release process releases everything, so we would actually just do a
7.0.2 release if we needed an update to the operator. Most likely it would
be the other way around, as we'd probably always have something to fix in
Keycloak ;)

>
> One way around this to only align the major version of the operator to the
> major version of Keycloak and document what version of Keycloak is included.
>
> 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 Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 1:28 PM Tomas Kyjovsky <tkyjovsk at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> > 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.
>>
>> Since the versioning would be 1-1 would it make sense to develop the
>> operator directly as Keycloak project/product module?
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 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
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
>