-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 42.3k
cleanup: remove stale kube-proxy TODO in GCE config #136570
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
cleanup: remove stale kube-proxy TODO in GCE config #136570
Conversation
As noted in kubernetes#136563, these GCE scripts are for testing only and no further development is anticipated. Removing the stale TODO regarding DaemonSet defaults to keep the configuration clean. Fixes kubernetes#136563 Signed-off-by: amigo-nishant <devopsplaybook@gmail.com>
|
Adding the "do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed" label because no release-note block was detected, please follow our release note process to remove it. DetailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
|
Keywords which can automatically close issues and at(@) or hashtag(#) mentions are not allowed in commit messages. The list of commits with invalid commit messages:
DetailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: amigo-nishant 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 |
|
This issue is currently awaiting triage. If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the The DetailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
|
Hi @amigo-nishant. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. DetailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
| PROMETHEUS_TO_SD_PREFIX=${PROMETHEUS_TO_SD_PREFIX:-custom.googleapis.com} | ||
| ENABLE_PROMETHEUS_TO_SD=${ENABLE_PROMETHEUS_TO_SD:-true} | ||
|
|
||
| # TODO(#51292): Make kube-proxy Daemonset default and remove the configuration here. |
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.
thanks for the PR... I think we can actually be way more aggressive at dropping the unused kube-proxy daemonset stuff ... opened #136571 to remove all of it
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.
That’s a great outcome! Glad this PR could serve as a catalyst for a deeper cleanup. I'll keep an eye on #136571. Thanks for the guidance!
What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup
What this PR does / why we need it:
While reviewing GCE cluster scripts, I found a stale TODO from 2017 regarding defaulting kube-proxy to a DaemonSet. Per maintainer feedback in #136563, these scripts are for testing only and no further development is anticipated. This PR removes the stale TODO to keep the configuration clean without changing existing test behavior.
Which issue(s) this PR is related to:
Fixes #136563
Special notes for your reviewer:
This is my second contribution. Following the guidance from @liggitt, I have opted to only remove the comment rather than flipping the technical default.
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
None