📖 chore: doc comment the need to keep using blang for version ranges

[azych]

Adds doc comment about the need to keep using github.com/blang/semver library for handling version ranges.
Follow up from #1565

Reviewer Checklist

• API Go Documentation
• Tests: Unit Tests (and E2E Tests, if appropriate)
• Comprehensive Commit Messages
• Links to related GitHub Issue(s)

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for olmv1 ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	e562d1f
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/olmv1/deploys/6788c389ac39ef000887dd12
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-1600--olmv1.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 66.75%. Comparing base (1bbc6cb) to head (e562d1f).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1600      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   66.69%   66.75%   +0.05%     
==========================================
  Files          57       57              
  Lines        4588     4593       +5     
==========================================
+ Hits         3060     3066       +6     
+ Misses       1303     1302       -1     
  Partials      225      225              

Flag	Coverage Δ
e2e	52.67% <0.00%> (-0.08%)	⬇️
unit	53.71% <100.00%> (+0.07%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[perdasilva]

<3 thank you!

[camilamacedo86]

/hold

Hi @azych and @perdasilva

Sorry, I remove this one from the Queue.

Just a small note before we proceed:

We won't be able to fully support the registry+v1 bundles due to fundamental differences in concepts and design choices. We've outlined the primary limitations in detail here: OLMv1 Limitations.

So we cannot add Because OLM v1 fully supports registry+v1 bundles (it is not true and we never will be to support all features of OLM V0, with registry+v1 bundles). Can you please refine this one?

[azych]

/hold

Hi @azych and @perdasilva

Sorry, I remove this one from the Queue.

Just a small note before we proceed:

We won't be able to fully support the registry+v1 bundles due to fundamental differences in concepts and design choices. We've outlined the primary limitations in detail here: OLMv1 Limitations.

So we cannot add Because OLM v1 fully supports registry+v1 bundles (it is not true and we never will be to support all features of OLM V0, with registry+v1 bundles). Can you please refine this one?

Would Because OLM v1 supports registry+v1 bundles be alright?

[azych]

@camilamacedo86 @perdasilva

PR should be good to go, can you remove the hold and merge it?

[camilamacedo86]

Hi @azych

I would prefer if we added support for a "superset of" as suggested by @perdasilva, since it seems more accurate and aligns with the terminology we use in the documentation and other places.

That said, since we're no longer claiming full support for OLM v1 here, I’m okay with the current approach.

Just to share, the registry-v1 for OLM v1 is, in some way, deprecated. Until we are able to move with the Roadmap, it will remain, but we’re still moving forward in directions like adopting HelmChart. There’s a possibility of designing a registry-v2 in the future. This new design would aim to address the issues identified with registry-v1 and be more suited for OLM v1.

/lgtm
/approve

[azych]

@camilamacedo86 it looks like there is still a hold in place for this, shouldn't it be removed?

I would prefer if we added support for a "superset of" as suggested by @perdasilva, since it seems more accurate and aligns with the terminology we use in the documentation and other places.

That said, since we're no longer claiming full support for OLM v1 here, I’m okay with the current approach.

Just to clarify - @perdasilva proposed inclusion of "sub-set", not a superset and I provided my reasoning about why I chose not to go with it here: #1600 (comment)

[camilamacedo86]

/hold cancel

[openshift-ci]

New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed.