Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/api
cc @lavalamp @smarterclayton @erictune @thockin @bgrant0607
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)
Alter how runtime.SerializeInfo is represented to simplify negotiation
and reduce the need to allocate during negotiation. Simplify the dynamic
client's logic around negotiating type. Add more tests for media type
handling where necessary.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Centralize install code
Trying to figure out a way to do this that makes the changes as painless to roll out as possible. This is going to be a multi-step process...
Convert single GV and lists of GVs into an interface that can handle
more complex scenarios (everything internal, nothing supported). Pass
the interface down into conversion.
The codec factory should support two distinct interfaces - negotiating
for a serializer with a client, vs reading or writing data to a storage
form (etcd, disk, etc). Make the EncodeForVersion and DecodeToVersion
methods only take Encoder and Decoder, and slight refactoring elsewhere.
In the storage factory, use a content type to control what serializer to
pick, and use the universal deserializer. This ensures that storage can
read JSON (which might be from older objects) while only writing
protobuf. Add exceptions for those resources that may not be able to
write to protobuf (specifically third party resources, but potentially
others in the future).
Delete a job scale test
A subsequent PR is going to remove support
for this anyways.
Initialize extensions before batch and autoscaling
per @lavalamp review suggestion.
Combine the fields that will be used for content transformation
(content-type, codec, and group version) into a single struct in client,
and then pass that struct into the rest client and request. Set the
content-type when sending requests to the server, and accept the content
type as primary.
Will form the foundation for content-negotiation via the client.
Remove Codec from versionInterfaces in meta (RESTMapper is now agnostic
to codec and serialization). Register api/latest.Codecs as the codec
factory and use latest.Codecs.LegacyCodec(version) as an equvialent to
the previous codec.
Kubernetes Submit Queue