Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/controller
cc @jsafrane @mikedanese @bprashanth @derekwaynecarr @thockin @saad-ali
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
perfectly: 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.
## 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 add
the names of people that should be reviewing code in the future in the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify the **approvers** section.
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
Bad conditional in vSphereLogin function
```release-note
Fixes NotAuthenticated errors that appear in the kubelet and kube-controller-manager due to never logging in to vSphere
```
With this conditional being == instead of !=, a login would never actually be attempted by this provider, and disk attachments would fail with a NotAuthenticated error from vSphere.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: cmd/kubeadm
cc @jbeda @mikedanese @luxas @errordeveloper
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
CRI: fix ImageStatus comment
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
GRPC cannot encode `nil` (CRI-O itself panic while trying to encode `nil` for `ImageStatus`). This PR fixes `ImageStatus` comment to say that when the image does not exist the call returns a response having `Image` set to `nil` (instead of saying implementors should return `nil` directly).
/cc @mrunalp @vishh @feiskyer
**Which issue this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close that issue when PR gets merged)*: fixes #
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
**Release note**:
```release-note
```
Signed-off-by: Antonio Murdaca <runcom@redhat.com>
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: cluster/vagrant
cc @derekwaynecarr
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
cluster/aws: Clean up dhcp-options
**What this PR does / why we need it**: After adding the aws janitor, the thing we're consistently sweeping is the DhcpOptionSets created by cluster/aws/util.sh (and there were thousands on the first run). Fix it!
**Which issue this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close that issue when PR gets merged)*:
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
**Release note**:
```release-note
Fix an issue where AWS tear-down leaks an DHCP Option Set.
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Bump default kubernetes version when no internet is present to v1.5
@mikedanese Please lgtm as soon as possible
It's a noop, when no internet is present so the latest version can't be determined, this version is used.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/admission/
cc @lavalamp @davidopp @erictune @liggitt @derekwaynecarr
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.
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. Use the following commit as a suggestion: 7f6469fc41
3. The pull-request is made editable, please edit the `OWNERS` file to
add the names of people that should be reviewing code in the future in
the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify the **approvers**
section.
4. 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.
5. 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
Leak filling for newline format on benchmark-go.sh
**What this PR does / why we need it**: make hack/benchmark-go.sh work
**Which issue this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close that issue when PR gets merged)*: fixes #
**Special notes for your reviewer**: First commit :D , did I make a wrong modification?
**Release note**:
```release-note
```
After adding the aws janitor, the thing we're consistently sweeping is
the DhcpOptionSets created by cluster/aws/util.sh (and there were
thousands on the first run). Fix it!
Automatic merge from submit-queue
goflags must be after subcommand
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
if GOFLAGS is set when calling make, kubernetes will fail to build
as an example, I often have `GOFLAGS=-v` so I can have some idea of progress during compilation
**Which issue this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close that issue when PR gets merged)*:
no known issue
**Special notes for your reviewer**:
**Release note**:
```release-note
NONE
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38419, 38457, 38607)
Node E2E: Update CVM version to e2e-node-containervm-v20161208-image.
I built the new node e2e image from e2e-node-containervm-v20161208-image.
@timstclair
/cc @kubernetes/sig-node
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38419, 38457, 38607)
Fix pod level QoS does not works on CRI dockershim
Fixes: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/38458
We did set `CgroupParent ` in `CreateContainer`, but the `HostConfig.Resources` which `CgroupParent` belongs to is override by the following code:
```
hc.CgroupParent = lc.GetCgroupParent()
...
hc.Resources = dockercontainer.Resources{
Memory: rOpts.GetMemoryLimitInBytes(),
...
}
```
That's why `HostConfig.CgroupParent` is always empty and pod level QoS does not work.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
bump log level on service status update
ref: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/38349
I tried to reproduce the problem in #38349 and failed. Not sure why service status update failed and service controller skip status update in the next round. What I have observed is that if service status update failed due to conflict, the next round of processServiceUpdate will correct it.
Bumping log level to get a better signal when it occurs.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38453, 36672, 38629, 34966, 38630)
Fix threshold notifier build tags
Fix threshold notifier build tags so the linux version is only built if cgo is
enabled, and the unsupported version is built if it's either not linux or not
cgo.
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38453, 36672, 38629, 34966, 38630)
Fix staging/copy.sh to work on mac and linux
@smarterclayton ptal
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38453, 36672, 38629, 34966, 38630)
Warn user if they try to apply on an object without the annotation
Give user a warning when using `kubectl apply` on a resource lacking the `LastAppliedConfig` annotation
fixes#36620
Ref: #35134 and #36509.
**Release note**:
```release-note
Issue a warning when using `kubectl apply` on a resource lacking the `LastAppliedConfig` annotation
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue
remove incorrect groupName comment for apps.k8s.io
The group name is "apps", not "apps.k8s.io"
The comment didn't actually affect client generation because there was an extra space between it and the package declaration, but removing it to avoid confusion
This is to facilitate GCI tip vs. K8s tip testing; we need to
dynamically set the version of GCI to stay current with their
latest canary (latest of the "gci-base" prefixed images).
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Increase GCE operation timeout
It seems 30 minutes is too small for creating some routes in large clusters.
@thockin - FYI
Automatic merge from submit-queue
error in setNodeStatus func should not abort node status update
`setNodeStatus()` currently errors out if any of the functions in the `kl.setNodeStatusFuncs` returns an error, resulting in the node not reporting status and eventually being marked as `NotReady`.
`setNodeAddress()` is currently the only function in `defaultNodeStatusFuncs()` that can return an error and it does if the cloud provider can't be contacted for any number of reasons like token expiration, API outage, ratelimit block, etc.
This PR changes `setNodeStatus()` to log, rather than return, when an error is returned by one of the `setNodeStatusFuncs` so that the node status update can proceed.
Fixes#34455
xref https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1400574
@eparis @derekwaynecarr @mikedanese @anguslees
Fix threshold notifier build tags so the linux version is only built if cgo is
enabled, and the unsupported version is built if it's either not linux or not
cgo.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
fix client cert handling for delegate authn
Builds on https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/38409.
The client cert wasn't presented by the API server, so tools didn't send it. These will start getting caught as we add usage into e2e. Once we split genericapiserver out, we can have a different style integration test that hits these too.
bprashanth