Remove vendoring #4004
Open
Remove vendoring #4004
+8
−3,689,950
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…ing and is mostly not needed since we de-vendored the installer
hawkowl
added
enhancement
hawkowl
requested review from
jewzaam,
bennerv,
rogbas,
petrkotas,
jharrington22,
cblecker,
cadenmarchese,
UlrichSchlueter,
SudoBrendan,
yjst2012,
jaitaiwan,
anshulvermapatel,
hlipsig,
tiguelu,
mociarain,
kimorris27 and
tsatam
as code owners
Closed
|
Please rebase pull request. |
github-actions
bot
added
needs-rebase
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Which issue this PR addresses:
Part of issues.redhat.com/browse/ARO-3571
What this PR does / why we need it:
Removes vendor/ and six bajillion LoC in the repo.
Allows us to use subpackages (similar to hive's API) so that we can reuse components without pulling in the whole RP. Also removes the problems we had with macos vendoring.
Doesn't have any impact on our security posture since the SHAs of the Go packages are already stored in our go.sum. Might impact initial build times/CI, but nowhere near as much as building the code already does. We can optimise our go build caches which would fix this + the extant build time duration in CI, if we decide to.
Test plan for issue:
CI/E2E
Is there any documentation that needs to be updated for this PR?
Docs in the repo are updated
How do you know this will function as expected in production?
Shouldn't affect production.