Move ssl_options & auth options into constructor about kubeclient HOT 11 CLOSED

@jimmidyson, please make sure the readme is aligned with this change, I'd like to release a new gem ver. with latest commits. thanks!

from kubeclient.

@abonas I think it is aligned with this change, isn't it?

from kubeclient.

@abonas I think it is aligned with this change, isn't it?

I'm not saying it's not :) , I just wanted to make sure it is fully updated before releasing a new version, as once a gem is released, if it's unusable, it's hard to get rid of it (you need to yank it on rubygems, but can't reupload it unless you bump version again)

from kubeclient.

@jimmidyson @abonas thanks for this fix (cc @oschreib ), we actually require this ASAP (let's wait for Mooli's changes and then let's build a new gem)

from kubeclient.

@jimmidyson @abonas thanks for this fix (cc @oschreib ), we actually require this ASAP (let's wait for Mooli's changes and then let's build a new gem)

@simon3z , this was released as part of 0.2.0 so to use it, either 0.2.0 or 0.3.0 can be taken.
I am probably missing something in your comment above :)
v0.1.17...v0.2.0

from kubeclient.

@abonas apparently this commit also carries a fix (that shouldn't have been part of the patch):

5cf2c3a#diff-78cbcd17c7ae3f02081ec1ce253bb73bR43

cc @jimmidyson

Now we find ourselves in a situation where we can't bump from v0.1.17 (and fix the to_s part in ManageIQ) without carrying in also all the ssl_options changes. Which is something that Mooli is working on.

from kubeclient.

@abonas so what I meant is to wait for @moolitayer's patch and build right away because we're not only introducing quota and limits but also fixing an important issue. (This is the effect of not having a stable branch, which anyway is too early to have).

from kubeclient.

@simon3z Moving to ssl_options should be a case of just moving the previous ssl_options into your .new call?

from kubeclient.

@jimmidyson yes I wanted to fix the to_s part without having to move to the new API. It will be easier in the future when we'll have a stable branch.

from kubeclient.

@jimmidyson only problem here was the lack of awareness of an important issue that should be filed/resolved separately.

from kubeclient.

@simon3z I'd personally just be happy that the fix is there :)

from kubeclient.