feat: add agoric-upgrade-22 (proposal 110) #296
Conversation
|
Review changes with Changed Files
|
|
mujahidkay
force-pushed
the
mk/u22
branch
2 times, most recently
from
2054970 to
5840e41
Compare
uses u22b tags, image and commit hashes
our tooling currently doesn't work with node 24 so downgrading to 22
| "planName": "agoric-upgrade-22", | ||
| "upgradeInfo": { | ||
| "binaries": { | ||
| "any": "https://github.com/Agoric/agoric-sdk/archive/d15cbb93a8c1e96b364de7d961909ff1199876e5.zip//agoric-sdk-d15cbb93a8c1e96b364de7d961909ff1199876e5?checksum=sha256:3d1252d62cd57db86848707692f636e9518d02338eb538933238dad3b4c5b243" | ||
| }, | ||
| "source": "https://github.com/Agoric/agoric-sdk/archive/d15cbb93a8c1e96b364de7d961909ff1199876e5.zip?checksum=sha256:3d1252d62cd57db86848707692f636e9518d02338eb538933238dad3b4c5b243" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is technically aligning to https://github.com/Agoric/agoric-sdk/releases/tag/agoric-upgrade-22b as we're using 69 tag and relevant commit-hash, right?
So shouldn't we change releaseNotes link to https://github.com/Agoric/agoric-sdk/releases/tag/agoric-upgrade-22b?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I'm not sure which release to put in releaseNotes. Ideally, it should be all 3 (22, 22a and 22b).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The actual chain software upgrade was agoric-upgrade-22, hence I opted for its release notes. But the code is indeed for u22b which includes the two patches. Shouldn't be a merge blocker though, we can always update this later on.
| - uses: actions/setup-node@v4 | ||
| with: | ||
| node-version: lts/* | ||
| node-version: 22 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What broke? We need an issue. Agoric officially supports all LTS
adopt a passed proposal
When a proposal passes on agoric-3 Mainnet, it should be included in the history that this synthetic image tracks.
fromTagusinglatest(such as a3p-integration) to use a fixed version (otherwise they will fail when this PR changes latest and they pick it up)tooling improvements
As long as it passes CI it should be fine.