📖 document ClusterClass rotation behavior for MachinePool objects#13280
📖 document ClusterClass rotation behavior for MachinePool objects#13280bnallapeta wants to merge 1 commit intokubernetes-sigs:mainfrom
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
do-not-merge/needs-area
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
cncf-cla: yes
|
/cc @AndiDog @richardcase |
docs/book/src/developer/providers/contracts/bootstrap-config.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
docs/book/src/developer/providers/contracts/bootstrap-config.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
docs/book/src/developer/providers/contracts/bootstrap-config.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
docs/book/src/developer/providers/contracts/bootstrap-config.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
docs/book/src/developer/providers/contracts/infra-machinepool.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Signed-off-by: Bharath Nallapeta <nr.bharath97@gmail.com>
bnallapeta
force-pushed
the
mp/contract
branch
from
2c33545 to
2ee5e91
Compare
|
@AndiDog PTAL. Thanks. |
| As of today the Node initialization consists of syncing labels from Machines to Nodes. Once the labels have been | ||
| initially synced the taint is removed from the Node. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Infrastructure provider watching for bootstrap changes |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This page here is a description of the contract for bootstrap providers. I think we should not specify the infrastructure provider contract on this page
| When the topology controller detects that the InfraMachinePoolTemplate has changed (e.g., from template updates in ClusterClass), it performs | ||
| a **rotation**: | ||
|
|
||
| 1. Creates a new InfraMachinePool object with a new name |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@AndiDog @mboersma @richardcase Do we have consensus across InfraMachinePool providers that rotation is the right thing to do here?
I would have expected that just in-place updating the InfraMachinePool is much easier to implement for infra providers
4 participants
What this PR does / why we need it:
Addresses the concern raised in #13110
Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in
fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):Part of #10496
Additional info:
Post discussions with the MachinePool Working Group, proposals mentioned in this doc is created to unblock #13110
Area example:
/area machinepool
/area clusterclass