Change:
Files storing latest versions for minors are not updated since infix was to the version string. Example Similar issues can be found in 1.25 and 1.24 builds (last 1.23 build infix so it has not happened there yet): I expect the files to be overwritten with newer version of the build. Manually run build job for one of the minors. No response Not related. Not related. No response No response No response No response
I believe this may be also responsible for breaking kubemark tests: since they fail due to version mismatch
/sig release
The label(s) cannot be applied, because the repository doesn't have them. <detailsIn response to : /priority high Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
Thanks for raising the issue! /cc who is working on before
I assume this will be fixed automatically with the next patches, because then we would compare with . Anyway, I think we should fix that intermediately by manually updating the version markers to match their correct version. I did that now for the bucket
We had to update the versions markers again, because those were pointing to two commits earlier and didn't include the Go updates. The latest version markers are: v1.24.12-35+ v1.25.8-37+ v1.26.3-41+
latest-1.27 has been affected by this as well. I updated it manually to v1.27.0-9+. See this thread for more details:
/triage accepted
This should be fixed now, closing it. Feel free to reopen if we missed anything.
This issue is still present, see this Slack thread for more details: /reopen
Reopened this issue. <detailsIn response to : This issue is still present, see this Slack thread for more details: /reopen Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
We have a similar situation with latest-1.28 which is currently pointing to: . This is one commit before the release commit: ! It's mostly like that the release step didn't update version markers, we should look into this. As of now, I'm going to manually update this version marker to unblock 1.28.1 patch release. I'll also take a look into this. /assign
The PR that fixed this issue got reverted so this is still relevant: /reopen
Reopened this issue. <detailsIn response to : The PR that fixed this issue got reverted so this is still relevant: /reopen Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
We're running into this issue again with stable-1.29 marker. It's currently pointing to which is It should instead point to I'm going to manually change it following the same procedure as the last time. Version marker updated to
This issue is labeled with but has not been updated in over 90 days, and should be re-triaged. Important-soon issues must be staffed and worked on either currently, or very soon, ideally in time for the next release. You can: Confirm that this issue is still relevant with (org members only) Deprioritize it with or Close this issue with For more details on the triage process, see /remove-triage accepted
/triage accepted
Same issue for 1.30, where I had to update the version marker manually again.

Discussion:
## Code reviews <del> All changes must be code reviewed.  For non-maintainers this is obvious, since you can't commit anyway.  But even for maintainers, we want all changes to get at least one review, preferably from someone who knows the areas the change touches.  For non-trivial changes we may want two reviewers.  The primary reviewer will make this decision and nominate a second reviewer, if needed.  Except for trivial changes, PRs should sit for at least a 2 hours to allow for wider review. </del> <ins> All changes must be code reviewed.  For non-maintainers this is obvious, since you can't commit anyway.  But even for maintainers, we want all changes to get at least one review, preferably from someone who knows the areas the change touches.  For non-trivial changes we may want two reviewers.  The primary reviewer will make this decision and nominate a second reviewer, if needed.  Except for trivial changes, PRs should sit for at least 2 hours to allow for wider review. </ins> Most PRs will find reviewers organically.  If a maintainer intends to be the primary reviewer of a PR they should set themselves as the assignee on GitHub and say so in a reply to the PR.  Only the primary reviewer of a change should actually do the merge, except in rare cases (e.g. they are unavailable in a reasonable timeframe).