Deployments get cleaned up only when they are paused, they get scaled up/down,
or when the strategy that drives rollouts completes. This means that stuck
deployments that fall into none of the above categories will not get cleaned
up. Since cleanup is already safe by itself (we only delete old replica sets
that are synced by the replica set controller and have no replicas) we can
execute it for every deployment when there is no intention to rollback.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 39826, 40030)
azure disk: restrict length of name
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
Fixes dynamic disk provisioning on Azure by properly truncating the disk name to conform to the Azure API spec.
**Which issue this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close that issue when PR gets merged)*: fixes #
n/a
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
n/a
**Release note**:
```release-note
azure disk: restrict name length for Azure specifications
```
cc: @rootfs
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Made tracing of calls and container lifecycle steps in FakeDockerClient optional
Fixes#39717
Slightly refactored the FakeDockerClient code and made tracing optional (but enabled by default).
@yujuhong @Random-Liu
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/volume
cc @jsafrane @spothanis @agonzalezro @justinsb @johscheuer @simonswine @nelcy @pmorie @quofelix @sdminonne @thockin @saad-ali @rootfs
In an effort to expand the existing pool of reviewers and establish a
two-tiered review process (first someone lgtms and then someone
experienced in the project approves), we are adding new reviewers to
existing owners files.
If You Care About the Process:
------------------------------
We did this by algorithmically figuring out who’s contributed code to
the project and in what directories. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work
well: people that have made mechanical code changes (e.g change the
copyright header across all directories) end up as reviewers in lots of
places.
Instead of using pure commit data, we generated an excessively large
list of reviewers and pruned based on all time commit data, recent
commit data and review data (number of PRs commented on).
At this point we have a decent list of reviewers, but it needs one last
pass for fine tuning.
Also, see https://github.com/kubernetes/contrib/issues/1389.
TLDR:
-----
As an owner of a sig/directory and a leader of the project, here’s what
we need from you:
1. Use PR https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/35715 as an example.
2. The pull-request is made editable, please edit the `OWNERS` file to
remove the names of people that shouldn't be reviewing code in the
future in the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify
the **approvers** section. Names asre sorted by relevance, using some
secret statistics.
3. Notify me if you want some OWNERS file to be removed. Being an
approver or reviewer of a parent directory makes you a reviewer/approver
of the subdirectories too, so not all OWNERS files may be necessary.
4. Please use ALIAS if you want to use the same list of people over and
over again (don't hesitate to ask me for help, or use the pull-request
above as an example)
Automatic merge from submit-queue
OWNERS: Create sig-node alias
Create an alias group for sig-node
This will be used by `pkg/kubelet/OWNERS` and `test/e2e_node/OWNERS`.
**Release note**: NONE
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Enable streaming proxy redirects by default (beta)
Prerequisite to moving CRI to Beta.
I'd like to enable this early in our 1.6 cycle to get plenty of test coverage before release.
@yujuhong @liggitt
```release-note
Follow redirects for streaming requests (exec/attach/port-forward) in the apiserver by default (alpha -> beta).
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Include "ingresses" resource in RBAC bootstrap roles
The bootstrap RBAC roles "admin", "edit", and "view" should all be able to apply their respective access verbs to the "ingresses" resource in order to facilitate both publishing Ingress resources (for
service administrators) and consuming them (for ingress controllers).
Note that I alphabetized the resources listed in the role definitions that I changed to make it easier to decide later where to insert new entries. The original order looked like it may have started out alphabetized, but lost its way. If I missed an intended order there, please advise.
I am uncertain whether this change deserves mention in a release note, given the RBAC feature's alpha state. Regardless, it's possible that a cluster administrator could have been happy with the previous set of permissions afforded by these roles, and would be surprised to discover that bound subjects can now control _Ingress_ resources. However, in order to be afflicted, that administrator would have had to have applied these role definitions again which, if I understand it, would be a deliberate act, as bootstrapping should only occur once in a given cluster.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: examples/mysql-wordpress-pd
cc @jeffmendoza
In an effort to expand the existing pool of reviewers and establish a
two-tiered review process (first someone lgtms and then someone
experienced in the project approves), we are adding new reviewers to
existing owners files.
If You Care About the Process:
------------------------------
We did this by algorithmically figuring out who’s contributed code to
the project and in what directories. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work
well: people that have made mechanical code changes (e.g change the
copyright header across all directories) end up as reviewers in lots of
places.
Instead of using pure commit data, we generated an excessively large
list of reviewers and pruned based on all time commit data, recent
commit data and review data (number of PRs commented on).
At this point we have a decent list of reviewers, but it needs one last
pass for fine tuning.
Also, see https://github.com/kubernetes/contrib/issues/1389.
TLDR:
-----
As an owner of a sig/directory and a leader of the project, here’s what
we need from you:
1. Use PR https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/35715 as an example.
2. The pull-request is made editable, please edit the `OWNERS` file to
remove the names of people that shouldn't be reviewing code in the
future in the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify
the **approvers** section. Names asre sorted by relevance, using some
secret statistics.
3. Notify me if you want some OWNERS file to be removed. Being an
approver or reviewer of a parent directory makes you a reviewer/approver
of the subdirectories too, so not all OWNERS files may be necessary.
4. Please use ALIAS if you want to use the same list of people over and
over again (don't hesitate to ask me for help, or use the pull-request
above as an example)
Automatic merge from submit-queue
log cfgzErr if err happened
We need to log err info when err info returned by initConfigz(),no matter what the result of utilconfig.DefaultFeatureGate.DynamicKubeletConfig() is and
whether s.RunOnce is true or not.
We should log the initKubeletConfigSync() err info too.
The bootstrap RBAC roles "admin", "edit", and "view" should all be
able to apply their respective access verbs to the "ingresses"
resource in order to facilitate both publishing Ingress resources (for
service administrators) and consuming them (for ingress controllers).
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Remove packages which are now apimachinery
Removes all the content from the packages that were moved to `apimachinery`. This will force all vendoring projects to figure out what's wrong. I had to leave many empty marker packages behind to have verify-godep succeed on vendoring heapster.
@sttts straight deletes and simple adds
