-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 787
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
imagebuildah.StageExecutor: clean up volumes/volumeCache #5729
imagebuildah.StageExecutor: clean up volumes/volumeCache #5729
Conversation
0a4b53a
to
6221d1f
Compare
6ee59e6
to
2dce539
Compare
2dce539
to
0a53800
Compare
LGTM |
Clean up the distinctions between the volumes slice and the volumeCache and volumeCacheInfo maps so that --compat-volumes will work correctly when we're building with multiple layers. Signed-off-by: Nalin Dahyabhai <[email protected]>
0a53800
to
81d1256
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/lgtm
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: giuseppe, nalind The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
/cherry-pick release-1.37 |
@nalind: #5729 failed to apply on top of branch "release-1.37":
In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup
What this PR does / why we need it:
Clean up the distinctions between the volumes slice and the volumeCache and volumeCacheInfo maps so that --compat-volumes will work correctly when we're building with multiple layers.
How to verify it
Expanded integration tests!
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?