Skip to content

Clarify whether CRDs are cluster scoped in multitenancy page #48156

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from
Closed

Clarify whether CRDs are cluster scoped in multitenancy page #48156

wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

aryasoni98
Copy link
Contributor

Description

This PR updates the Kubernetes documentation to clarify the behavior of Custom Resource Definitions (CRDs) in the context of namespace isolation. The current wording incorrectly implies that namespace isolation does not apply to CRDs, without specifying that while CRDs are cluster-scoped, the resources they define can indeed be namespaced.

The revised sentence now reads:

"However, it can be difficult to configure, and it doesn't apply to resources that are cluster-scoped and not namespaced, such as Custom Resource Definitions (CRDs) themselves (though the custom resources they define can be namespaced), Storage Classes, and Webhooks."

This clarification will help users better understand the relationship between CRDs and namespace isolation.

Issue

Closes: #48112

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. language/en Issues or PRs related to English language size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Oct 1, 2024
@netlify Netlify
Copy link

netlify bot commented Oct 1, 2024 •
edited
Loading

✅ Pull request preview available for checking

Built without sensitive environment variables

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit 4f420f5
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/kubernetes-io-main-staging/deploys/67115426afa0d00008315920
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-48156--kubernetes-io-main-staging.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

@sftim
Copy link
Contributor

sftim commented Oct 1, 2024

/retitle Clarify whether CRDs are cluster scoped in multitenancy page

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot changed the title "Multi-tenancy" page may confuse some readers about whether CRDs are cluster scoped Clarify whether CRDs are cluster scoped in multitenancy page Oct 1, 2024
sftim
sftim reviewed Oct 1, 2024
View reviewed changes
tengqm
tengqm reviewed Oct 2, 2024
View reviewed changes
@aryasoni98 aryasoni98 requested review from tengqm and sftim October 2, 2024 07:12
@aryasoni98 aryasoni98 requested a review from tengqm October 2, 2024 18:09
@aryasoni98 aryasoni98 requested a review from tengqm October 3, 2024 03:57
@aryasoni98
Update multi-tenancy file
2903146 
Update multi-tenancy file

Update custom-resource-definition-versioning file

Update custom-resource-definition-versioning file
@tengqm tengqm added the tide/merge-method-squash Denotes a PR that should be squashed by tide when it merges. label Oct 3, 2024
@tengqm
Copy link
Contributor

tengqm commented Oct 3, 2024

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 3, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: fd5b0ac58ab544e2d2f27e026da8c615856447b8

@aryasoni98
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mengjiao-liu @mickeyboxell @tengqm @sftim Just wanted to follow up on the PR—everything is looking good on your end, and no further changes are needed. Could you please review it when you have a moment? If all looks good to you, feel free to go ahead and merge.

tengqm
tengqm reviewed Oct 16, 2024
View reviewed changes
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 17, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot requested a review from tengqm October 17, 2024 18:15
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed.

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from tengqm. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Oct 17, 2024
@dipesh-rawat
Copy link
Member

/hold

Hold until the PR addresses the review comment #48156 (comment) by removing the changes from the unrelated file for this PR.
(OK to unhold once that's corrected)

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Oct 17, 2024
@aryasoni98
Copy link
Contributor Author

This is a quick reminder about this PR. If everything looks good, could you please go ahead and merge it? Let me know if there’s anything else you need from me.

@sftim
Copy link
Contributor

sftim commented Jan 14, 2025

@aryasoni98 did you see #48156 (comment)?

There is a change you must make before we can merge this PR. If you know how to squash commits, please also do that - it's tidier.

@sftim
Copy link
Contributor

sftim commented Jan 14, 2025

I will mark this as "rotten". That doesn't mean the code changes are poor; really, what the mark means is that it's OK for a bot to automatically close the PR if nothing happens.

/lifecycle rotten

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lifecycle/rotten Denotes an issue or PR that has aged beyond stale and will be auto-closed. label Jan 14, 2025
@k8s-triage-robot
Copy link

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.

This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:

  • After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
  • After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
  • After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the PR is closed

You can:

  • Reopen this PR with /reopen
  • Mark this PR as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten
  • Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/close

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@k8s-triage-robot: Closed this PR.

In response to this:

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs.

This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:

  • After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
  • After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
  • After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the PR is closed

You can:

  • Reopen this PR with /reopen
  • Mark this PR as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten
  • Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/close

Instructions 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.

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

@mengjiao-liu mengjiao-liu Awaiting requested review from mengjiao-liu

@mickeyboxell mickeyboxell Awaiting requested review from mickeyboxell

@sftim sftim Awaiting requested review from sftim

@steve-hardman steve-hardman Awaiting requested review from steve-hardman

@tengqm tengqm Awaiting requested review from tengqm

Assignees

@tengqm tengqm

Labels
cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. language/en Issues or PRs related to English language lifecycle/rotten Denotes an issue or PR that has aged beyond stale and will be auto-closed. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. tide/merge-method-squash Denotes a PR that should be squashed by tide when it merges.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

"Multi-tenancy" page may confuse some readers about whether CRDs are cluster scoped
7 participants
@aryasoni98 @sftim @tengqm @k8s-ci-robot @dipesh-rawat @k8s-triage-robot @steve-hardman