Skip to content

Commit 5893df1

Browse files
stubbiclaude
andauthored
fix(ci): drop --remote from gh repo fork in OperatorHub submission (#58)
Modern `gh` CLI rejects `--remote` when a repository argument is also passed, with: the --remote flag is unsupported when a repository argument is provided This has silently failed the OperatorHub submission workflow on every release since v0.10.2 (2026-03-31), so no bundle PR has been opened at k8s-operatorhub/community-operators for any of v0.10.2..v0.11.0. The listing on operatorhub.io is therefore stuck on whatever bundle was last successfully submitted (the original v0.1.0). `--remote` was redundant here anyway: `gh repo fork --clone` with a repo argument creates the fork, clones it into the target directory, and auto-configures `origin`=fork and `upstream`=canonical, which is exactly what the subsequent `git fetch upstream main` needs. After merge, re-trigger the submission for v0.11.0 with: gh workflow run "OperatorHub Submission" -f tag=v0.11.0 Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
1 parent 455906f commit 5893df1

1 file changed

Lines changed: 5 additions & 2 deletions

File tree

.github/workflows/operatorhub.yaml

Lines changed: 5 additions & 2 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -62,8 +62,11 @@ jobs:
6262
# Configure gh as git credential helper so git push works with the PAT
6363
gh auth setup-git
6464
65-
# Clone the community-operators repo (fork is auto-created by gh)
66-
gh repo fork k8s-operatorhub/community-operators --clone=true --remote=true -- community-operators
65+
# Clone the community-operators repo (fork is auto-created by gh).
66+
# --remote is incompatible with passing a repo argument in modern gh;
67+
# gh repo fork --clone already sets up origin=fork and upstream=canonical
68+
# in the new clone.
69+
gh repo fork k8s-operatorhub/community-operators --clone=true -- community-operators
6770
cd community-operators
6871
6972
git config user.name "github-actions[bot]"

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)