Skip to content

Conversation

@fabriziopandini
Copy link
Member

What this PR does / why we need it:
Follow up of a slack discussion about contract version in metadata.yam

cc @lentzi90

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
Fixes #

/area documentation

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the area/documentation Issues or PRs related to documentation label Dec 9, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign joelspeed for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels Dec 9, 2025
Comment on lines 2928 to 2929
4. If the provider implements support the [clusterctl provider contract](../contracts/clusterctl.md), also the contract version defined in the CRD
the `metadata.yaml` file must be changed.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This sentence is a bit weird?

Suggested change
4. If the provider implements support the [clusterctl provider contract](../contracts/clusterctl.md), also the contract version defined in the CRD
the `metadata.yaml` file must be changed.
4. If the provider implements the new [clusterctl provider contract](../contracts/clusterctl.md), then the contract version defined in the CRD
and the `metadata.yaml` file must be changed.

Copy link
Contributor

@lentzi90 lentzi90 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you! This is looking good to me.
Honestly, the docs are not to blame for the mistake we did in CAPO, but I think it is good that this is highlighted anyway.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

area/documentation Issues or PRs related to documentation cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants