-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
KEP-4192: update the KEP to describe the currently implemented behavior #5596
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Stanislav Láznička <[email protected]>
…diffs Signed-off-by: Stanislav Láznička <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Stanislav Láznička <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Stanislav Láznička <[email protected]>
|
||
### Version Skew Strategy | ||
The feature will be enabled by the feature gate `StorageVersionMigrator` on both the _api-server_ and the _kube-controller-manager_. This gate must be set for both components during installation. Otherwise, since the kube-controller-manager is allowed to be one version lower than the api-server, it won't be able to process any StorageVersionMigration resources created by the API server. | ||
The feature will be enabled by the feature gate `StorageVersionMigrator` on the _kube-controller-manager_. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There is one other feature gate that I am not fully certain what it does but seems related, InformerResourceVersion
. It seems like all it does is return the last synced rv of an informer but it doesn't seem documented anywhere.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think for that particular featuregate, we could just open a PR in k/k GA-ing it based on the comments from https://kubernetes.slack.com/archives/C06S7LHB06B/p1759334861835019.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sounds good to me, I think this should effectively just be the removal of that conditional checking for the feature gate.
Signed-off-by: Stanislav Láznička <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Stanislav Láznička <[email protected]>
/approve |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: jpbetz, stlaz 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:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
/cc @michaelasp