Skip to content

feat: Support bucket_namespace#382

Merged
bryantbiggs merged 1 commit intoterraform-aws-modules:masterfrom
magreenbaum:feat/bucket_namespace
Mar 19, 2026
Merged

feat: Support bucket_namespace#382
bryantbiggs merged 1 commit intoterraform-aws-modules:masterfrom
magreenbaum:feat/bucket_namespace

Conversation

@magreenbaum
Copy link
Member

@magreenbaum magreenbaum commented Mar 19, 2026

Description

Support bucket_namespace account regional namespaces for general purpose buckets.

Motivation and Context

Breaking Changes

No.

How Has This Been Tested?

  • I have updated at least one of the examples/* to demonstrate and validate my change(s)
  • I have tested and validated these changes using one or more of the provided examples/* projects
  • I have executed pre-commit run -a on my pull request

@bryantbiggs bryantbiggs merged commit d220952 into terraform-aws-modules:master Mar 19, 2026
18 checks passed
antonbabenko pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 19, 2026
@semantic-release-bot
chore(release): version 5.11.0 [skip ci]
2f82f05 
## [5.11.0](v5.10.0...v5.11.0) (2026-03-19)

### Features

* Support `bucket_namespace` ([#382](#382)) ([d220952](d220952))
@antonbabenko
Copy link
Member

antonbabenko commented Mar 19, 2026

This PR is included in version 5.11.0 🎉

@magreenbaum magreenbaum deleted the feat/bucket_namespace branch March 20, 2026 13:34
@kriegster108
Copy link

kriegster108 commented Mar 20, 2026 •
edited
Loading

@magreenbaum There was a breaking change in this PR.. you bumped aws provider to higher version which broke our stuff. Is that expected to not be documented in a new release of this module to bump AWS provider to newer version?

We typically version our modules using ~>5.0 for flexibility, but hardcode our providers to be static version but now it seems that idea backfired on us. Wanted clarification on if this was a mistake, or am I not setting my module versions correctly?

@bryantbiggs
Copy link
Member

bryantbiggs commented Mar 20, 2026

@kriegster108 this change is not a breaking change - its a minor version bump which is required to support the feature at the point in which it was added to the provider.

If something "broke" in your configuration, I would take a deeper look - this is a benign feature addition that should have no side effects

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@bryantbiggs bryantbiggs bryantbiggs approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@magreenbaum @antonbabenko @kriegster108 @bryantbiggs