You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Recently, we rolled out an entire set of new k8s scriptworker pools via a push to the production branch, and a) the signingscript pool was busted because it was claiming tasks but had an incompatible version of osslsigncode due to a moved python:3.8 docker hub tag, and b) the rest of the pools were busted because they were using a version of scriptworker that didn't successfully claimWork.
On top of this, we didn't have an established, documented way of rolling back k8s pools; each person had their own way of doing so, or none at all. So:
+1 to this. This is one thing that if done right pro-actively, can save us a lot of time reactively. Wondering if parts of this could be good first bugs in learning scriptworker. If we built the initial skeleton, we might also advertise this to external contributors.
Recently, we rolled out an entire set of new k8s scriptworker pools via a push to the
production
branch, and a) the signingscript pool was busted because it was claiming tasks but had an incompatible version ofosslsigncode
due to a movedpython:3.8
docker hub tag, and b) the rest of the pools were busted because they were using a version of scriptworker that didn't successfullyclaimWork
.On top of this, we didn't have an established, documented way of rolling back k8s pools; each person had their own way of doing so, or none at all. So:
FROM
image digest in Dockerfiles,The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: