Skip to content

Conversation

@skitt
Copy link
Member

@skitt skitt commented Jan 17, 2025

This is identical to RangelReale/osincli; the latter has been archived.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested review from bertinatto and ibihim January 17, 2025 12:54
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jan 17, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: skitt
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign bertinatto 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

Copy link
Member

@bertinatto bertinatto left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Since our fork doesn’t include any changes from the original package, and go mod already pins the original revision from ~10 years ago, I’m wondering if there are any tangible benefits to making this change.

Is there something I might be overlooking?

Would migrating the code to https://pkg.go.dev/golang.org/x/oauth2 be a more effective approach instead?

@skitt
Copy link
Member Author

skitt commented Feb 3, 2025

Since our fork doesn’t include any changes from the original package, and go mod already pins the original revision from ~10 years ago, I’m wondering if there are any tangible benefits to making this change.

Is there something I might be overlooking?

I think it’s beneficial to clarify the dependencies — in future, if a change needs to be made in osincli, it’s more obvious that it’s something we have direct influence over if it’s in the openshift org (which seems to have been the initial intention anyway).

Would migrating the code to https://pkg.go.dev/golang.org/x/oauth2 be a more effective approach instead?

Probably, yes, but it’s a bit more effort ;-).

@openshift-bot
Copy link

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.

Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.
Exclude this issue from closing by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

/lifecycle stale

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label May 5, 2025
@skitt
Copy link
Member Author

skitt commented May 5, 2025

/remove-lifecycle stale

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label May 5, 2025
@openshift-bot
Copy link

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.

Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.
Exclude this issue from closing by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

/lifecycle stale

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Aug 4, 2025
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Aug 4, 2025
This is identical to RangelReale/osincli; the latter has been
archived.

Signed-off-by: Stephen Kitt <skitt@redhat.com>
@skitt skitt force-pushed the openshift-osincli branch from 991d73f to aed0c5f Compare August 25, 2025 07:33
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Aug 25, 2025
@skitt
Copy link
Member Author

skitt commented Aug 25, 2025

/remove-lifecycle stale

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Aug 25, 2025
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Aug 25, 2025

@skitt: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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. I understand the commands that are listed here.

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

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants