helmfile VS semver

What we’re going to install into the newly created AKS cluster is located in the helm directory. The descriptive Helmfile approach enables us to define applications and their settings in the helmfile.yaml file.

Is there any alternative to https://github.com/roboll/helmfile you are currently using in your company.

Interesting, I have approached this problem using Helmfile (https://github.com/roboll/helmfile) to define a “platform release package.”

To make managing the Helm deployments a little easier I used helmfile (https://github.com/roboll/helmfile).

But in general it's always easier to keep things quite separated. Meaning in separate helm releases. If you want to be able to manage things "together" at will, then you can use helmfile ( https://github.com/roboll/helmfile )

I agree; helm is too declarative.

Whenever I can, I use helmfile[0] for storing variables for helm since it does add a declarative layer on top of helm.

0 - https://github.com/roboll/helmfile

I went through the Helmfile repo Readme to figure out the difference between helmfile sync and helmfile apply. It seems like unlike the apply command, the sync command doesn't do a diff and helm upgrades the hell out of all releases 😃. But from the word sync, you'd expect the command to apply those releases that have been changed. There is also mention of the potential application of helmfile apply to periodically syncing of releases. Why not use helmfile sync for this purpose? Overall, the difference didn't become crystal clear, and I though there could probably be more to it. So, I'm asking.

helmfile is something i’ve used in the past for this https://github.com/roboll/helmfile

I always felt like dependencies in helm are for very simple non-coupled packages. I many times use Helmfile (https://github.com/roboll/helmfile) to manage dependencies instead of banging my head with vanilla Helm.

Once you do that, learn to create dynamic helm charts that use go templating and conditionals: https://github.com/roboll/helmfile

Following the Semantic Versioning rules, you should raise the version number every time you need to publish your library. In your "package.json" file, you need to change the version number to reflect whether the changes are major, minor, or patch updates.

Semantic Versioning: An established convention for version numbers following the pattern MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH

Increases the major of the latest tag and prints it As per the Semver spec, it'll also clear the pre-release…

The reason for this is that software libraries and package managers, in general, but specifically here, rely on semantic versioning. Semantic versioning is really useful for distributing packages in a predictable way. What does this look like for our project?

For a more detailed and comprehensive guide on semantic versioning, visit https://semver.org

I believe neovim follows semantic versioning. https://semver.org/

Semver has been 2.0.0 for 10 years, look at the date of the assets. Multiple releases created today where none existed before. Not sure why someone is creating releases now, perhaps just some housekeeping/cleanup.

https://github.com/semver/semver/releases

All ELRS hardware will talk to all other ELRS hardware, including Radiomaster's ELRS transmitters and receivers. There are one or two exceptions from scummy companies that have been pilloried by the community, and you probably won't find them anymore. So long as the ELRS firmware running on both devices has the same major version number, you're good to go. ie. 3.3.1 will still talk to 3.0.1, but won't talk to 2.0.0. (The "major version" is the 1st number, the "minor version" is the 2nd number, and the "patch version" is the 3rd number. See Semantic Versioning for more info.)

If you're using semver, read the spec it's not overly long or hard to understand.

Semantic versioning actually has a clear rule about this: