Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/proxy
cc @thockin
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)
Refactor `pkg/proxy/config`’s ServiceConfigHandler.OnUpdate and
EndpointsConfigHandler.OnUpdate to different method names as they have
different signatures.
This will let the new proxy
(https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/kubernetes/issues/3760)
implement both interfaces.
Since we won’t need a separate loadbalancer structure (load balancing
is handled in the proxy rules), we will simply handle both event types
from the same object.
Standardize how our fakes are used so that a test case can use a
simpler mechanism for providing large, complex data sets, as well
as represent queries over time.
Instead of endpoints being a flat list, it is now a list of "subsets"
where each is a struct of {Addresses, Ports}. To generate the list of
endpoints you need to take union of the Cartesian products of the
subsets. This is compact in the vast majority of cases, yet still
represents named ports and corner cases (e.g. each pod has a different
port number).
This also stores subsets in a deterministic order (sorted by hash) to
avoid spurious updates and comparison problems.
This is a fully compatible change - old objects and clients will
keepworking as long as they don't need the new functionality.
This is the prep for multi-port Services, which will add API to produce
endpoints in this new structure.
All the distros that use this have been updated,
or have PRs out to update them, or owners
have been asked to fix RPMs.
Removing this prevents further use of this model.
Remove now dead code: EtcdClientOrDie
Remove now dead pkg/proxy/config/etcd.go.
Remove unused imports.
gofmt -s from 1.4 does not like
for _ = range BLAH
it wants
for range BLAH
But gofmt from 1.3 dies:
./pkg/proxy/config/config.go:265:6: expected operand, found 'range'
./pkg/proxy/config/config.go:268:3: expected '{', found 'EOF'
So instead, rewrite the code to make them both happy
Split SourceAPI into two subobjects.
Parallel structure for endpoints, services will allow
changing to use generic code in pkg/client/cache/reflector.go.
Rename some funcs to be more like pkg/client/cache.
Mike Danese