Rename Shipwright components away from "operator"

[imjasonh]

Changes

This change renames installed components to avoid the misnomer "operator". See #607 for full motivation and an outline of the changes.

Fixes #607

This change will require installations to uninstall any previous version of Shipwright before installing this new version -- naively kubectl applying this new config with a previous installation of Shipwright installed would result in two competing installations, which would probably not be fun.

Submitter Checklist

• [n] Includes tests if functionality changed/was added
• [n] Includes docs if changes are user-facing
• [y] Release notes block has been filled in, or marked NONE

See the contributor guide
for details on coding conventions, github and prow interactions, and the code review process.

Release Notes

BREAKING: Change installation namespace, SA, ClusterRole{Binding}, and Deployment names

[zhangtbj]

Thanks for the naming improvement. Review all naming change and tests passed.
LGTM

[qu1queee]

I have only one question on a directory name change.

[qu1queee]

@imjasonh I think we can merge this one today, but I would like this one to be a v0.4.0 release due to the amount of changes, maybe we can ship this today together.

[qu1queee]

@SaschaSchwarze0 is this pr failing sanity checks with the same issues you saw in #623 and that u addressed via 060e617 ?

[imjasonh]

@SaschaSchwarze0 is this pr failing sanity checks with the same issues you saw in #623 and that u addressed via 060e617 ?

Tests seem to be passing now.

I had a couple failures because I neglected to git add cmd/manager when I renamed it back 🤦‍♂️. Those seem to be fixed now though 🤞

edit: spoke too soon 😢
edit2: Yeah it looks like 060e617 would fix this

[SaschaSchwarze0]

@SaschaSchwarze0 is this pr failing sanity checks with the same issues you saw in #623 and that u addressed via 060e617 ?

Yes, those are the same sanity check failures that appeared by magic (probably a change in the tool that we use).

[qu1queee]

@imjasonh maybe just cherry-pick them from @SaschaSchwarze0 , while this PR is closer to get merge.

[imjasonh]

@imjasonh maybe just cherry-pick them from @SaschaSchwarze0 , while this PR is closer to get merge.

I'd rather make that change in a separate PR, since it's unrelated to this change.

@SaschaSchwarze0 are you sending that change in a different PR already? If not, I can make one for it.

edit: oh I see #623 now

[SaschaSchwarze0]

@imjasonh maybe just cherry-pick them from @SaschaSchwarze0 , while this PR is closer to get merge.

I'd rather make that change in a separate PR, since it's unrelated to this change.

@SaschaSchwarze0 are you sending that change in a different PR already? If not, I can make one for it.

edit: oh I see #623 now

I can create a separate PR. One sec.

[SaschaSchwarze0]

@qu1queee #624

[imjasonh]

Thanks @SaschaSchwarze0 it looks like this passes sanity checks now 🎉

[qu1queee]

/lgtm
/approve

[openshift-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: qu1queee

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [qu1queee]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment