require go1.18 in go.mod #175
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
AjayTripathy
approved these changes
Jul 19, 2024
AjayTripathy
approved these changes
Jul 19, 2024
|
@johanneskastl Thank you so much for this! @cliffcolvin can we get a build out? |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What does this PR change?
Change the required go version in
go.modto 1.18, as lots of dependencies require this version.go mod tidyandgo mod verifywere run afterwardsDoes this PR rely on any other PRs?
No.
How does this PR impact users? (This is the kind of thing that goes in release notes!)
No impact on end users.
Links to Issues or ZD tickets this PR addresses or fixes
How was this PR tested?
I tested that I can successfully build a package for openSUSE based on my branch.
https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:ojkastl_buildservice:Branch_devel_kubic/kubectl-cost
Have you made an update to documentation?
No, I do not think there is a need for that.