Automatic merge from submit-queue
Update kubeadm etcd to 3.0.13 in order to switch to the etcd3 storage format
ref: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/35723
I think we should switch as soon as possible, but run it in etcd2 mode until the full etcd3 mode is stable
@kubernetes/sig-cluster-lifecycle @wojtek-t @xiang90 @lavalamp
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Update kubectl drain help message
Update `kubectl drain` help messages according to kubernetes/kubernetes.github.io#1768
cc: @erictune @pwittrock
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Add missing variable to openstack provider
`FIXED_NETWORK_CIDR` environment variable is mandatory by
openstack-heat kubernetes provider, but it's missing as
default value. Adding this environment variable is helpful
to build kubernetes cluster using openstack-heat provider.
So this patch adds it.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
eliminate kuberentes
Luckily only caught one from echo!
@kubernetes/test-infra-maintainers
<!-- Thanks for sending a pull request! Here are some tips for you:
1. If this is your first time, read our contributor guidelines https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md and developer guide https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/docs/devel/development.md
2. If you want *faster* PR reviews, read how: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/docs/devel/faster_reviews.md
3. Follow the instructions for writing a release note: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/docs/devel/pull-requests.md#release-notes
-->
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
It's important, and really hard, to identify kuberentes from kubernetes. As a human being, one's brain tends to auto fix the spelling for you thus when a dev was staring at the log for a good 30-min or so he will start question about his life and belief.
Luckily this is the only place in k/k, it's super important to fix it to avoid future pain.
**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**:
<!-- Steps to write your release note:
1. Use the release-note-* labels to set the release note state (if you have access)
2. Enter your extended release note in the below block; leaving it blank means using the PR title as the release note. If no release note is required, just write `NONE`.
-->
```release-note
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Clean up some wording
The wording felt a little clunky so I tried to smooth it out a little. Hopefully I maintained the author's intent.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/apis
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)
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)
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Added comments on running update-bazel.sh in "$GOPATH/src/k8s.io/kubernetes"
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
This path made `hack/update-bazel.sh` to accept `$GOPATH` with multiple path.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Fix container to pod in resource-qos.md
`...then the container is classified as Guaranteed.`
Here `container` should be `pod`.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: build-tools/kube-dns
cc @thockin @artfulcoder
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
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)
Automatic merge from submit-queue
update gazel usage in bazel.md
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
Now run the newest gazel have to specify the '-root' argument to update a single BUILD file.
So updated the gazel usage.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Fix doc links in Federation readme
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
The user guide and admin guide links were swapped round
**Release note**: NONE
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Reduce verbosity of volume reconciler
**What this PR does / why we need it**:
It reduces the log verbosity for attaching of volumes
**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
Reduce verbosity of volume reconciler when attaching volumes
```
Set logging level for information about attaching of volumes to from 1 to 4
Otherwise the log is spammed with one line per 100ms while attaching is
in progress and afterwards as long as the volume is attached.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
update binding details to design/persistent-storage doc
Scroll down to "Matching and binding" (there is no TOC).
An issue I see is that this level of detail may get stale quickly and there is no built-in mechanism to update this doc when the binding code changes. However, several people on my team, from time to time, want to know greater details about binding rules, eg. for test writing, updating/creating other docs, etc.
PTAL @jsafrane @pmorie @copejon
If it's decided this type of content (high level overview of an algorithm/implementation) is useful, but docs/design/ is not the right location, perhaps a new dir can be created for this type of content?
Anirudh Ramanathan