Revert "[RayService] Rollback Support for Incremental Upgrades"#4604
Revert "[RayService] Rollback Support for Incremental Upgrades"#4604Future-Outlier wants to merge 2 commits intomasterfrom
Conversation
This reverts commit b8b66d4.
Future-Outlier
requested review from
MortalHappiness,
andrewsykim,
kevin85421 and
rueian
as code owners
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 5eef493d26
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
Signed-off-by: Future-Outlier <[email protected]>
|
cc @ryanaoleary do you mind approve this PR? tks |
|
Should note that this isn't a full reversion since we're keeping the change to |
JiangJiaWei1103
left a comment
JiangJiaWei1103
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM. E2E at #4541 has merged this branch to remove the rollback e2e. I'll merge master again once this PR is merged.
|
If we're keeping the feature in alpha status, I suggest keeping new features in the release and then fixing bugs in follow up patches. That's kind of the point of using the alpha feature gate. Unless the bugs are critical and break the entire feature, is that the case? |
it's ok to keep it, I just think that add the e2e test first, then add back rollback feature might be a cleaner path |
github-project-automation
bot
moved this from can be merged
to Done
in @Future-Outlier's kuberay project
Agree, we should have done the e2e tests first, and we definitely should have them before graduating feature to beta in v1.7 :) |
4 participants
Reverts #4109
see details here
#3209 (comment)