Skip to content

CSI Topology ga#83474

Merged
k8s-ci-robot merged 6 commits intokubernetes:masterfrom
msau42:topology-ga
Nov 4, 2019
Merged

CSI Topology ga#83474
k8s-ci-robot merged 6 commits intokubernetes:masterfrom
msau42:topology-ga

Conversation

@msau42
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@msau42 msau42 commented Oct 3, 2019 •
edited
Loading

What type of PR is this?
/kind api-change
/kind feature

What this PR does / why we need it:
Move CSI Topology feature to GA. This PR adds the CSINode object to storage.k8s.io/v1 API group.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

CSI Topology feature is GA. The CSINodeInfo feature gate is deprecated and will be removed in a future release. The storage.k8s.io/v1beta1 CSINode object is deprecated and will be removed in a future release.

Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:

- [KEP]: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/ac738ac78ec2e425c54354119526bac916baeb7e/keps/sig-storage/20190124-csi-topology.md
- [Usage]: https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/storage/storage-classes/#volume-binding-mode
- [Other doc]: https://kubernetes-csi.github.io/docs/topology.html

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. kind/api-change Categorizes issue or PR as related to adding, removing, or otherwise changing an API kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. area/test sig/api-machinery Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG API Machinery. sig/storage Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Storage. sig/testing Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Testing. and removed needs-sig Indicates an issue or PR lacks a `sig/foo` label and requires one. labels Oct 3, 2019
@msau42 msau42 mentioned this pull request Oct 3, 2019
Closed
@msau42 msau42 force-pushed the topology-ga branch 3 times, most recently from e97b2a7 to 15bb8e8 Compare October 4, 2019 01:45
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the sig/auth Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Auth. label Oct 4, 2019
@msau42
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

msau42 commented Oct 4, 2019

/retest

@msau42 msau42 changed the title WIP CSI Topology ga CSI Topology ga Oct 4, 2019
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Oct 4, 2019
msau42
msau42 commented Oct 4, 2019
View reviewed changes
staging/src/k8s.io/api/storage/v1beta1/types.go Outdated
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@msau42 msau42 Oct 4, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Side note: I noticed the other objects in here, StorageClass, VolumeAttachment are not deprecated. Should we go ahead and deprecate them (in a separate PR)?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@thockin thockin Oct 21, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Originally, the plan was to deprecate whole group-versions, but that seems to have shifted in machinery.

@liggitt or @lavalamp - thoughts? Should we deprecate individual types from a group? I don't think we can, really.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@msau42 msau42 Oct 23, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'll go ahead and deprecate the other objects in a separate pr

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@thockin thockin Oct 23, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure I buy this. At all. Deprecation policy says:

Rule #1: API elements may only be removed by incrementing the version of the API group.

@msau42
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

msau42 commented Oct 4, 2019

/assign @jsafrane
/label api-review

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the api-review Categorizes an issue or PR as actively needing an API review. label Oct 4, 2019
@msau42
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

msau42 commented Oct 4, 2019

@kubernetes/sig-storage-pr-reviews
/priority important-soon

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added priority/important-soon Must be staffed and worked on either currently, or very soon, ideally in time for the next release. and removed needs-priority Indicates a PR lacks a `priority/foo` label and requires one. labels Oct 4, 2019
@msau42
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

msau42 commented Oct 23, 2019

Since the original storage/v1, we added new types to v1beta1 that don't exist yet. I assume only once all the v1beta1 types are promoted to v1, then we can actually remove v1beta1. But I guess the question is can we deprecate a single type, or do we have to wait and deprecate the entire group?

@thockin
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

thockin commented Oct 23, 2019 via email

@liggitt
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

liggitt commented Oct 23, 2019

What is the point of deprecating it from v1beta1 if it is not actually being removed in any subsequent version?

Some scenarios we've encountered:

Improvements that require changing API behavior must only be applied to subsequent versions:

  • Improved defaults (like deployment's spec.revisionHistoryLimit)
  • Structural improvements (like ingress v1)

Bug fixes that change API behavior can generally only be fixed in subsequent versions:

  • Improved validation (like better validation around custom resource definition schemas in v1, or see the long list of validations we wish we could tighten)
  • Fixes to API field name typos

Those benefits aside, marking the beta resource deprecated once the GA version is available is a good signal the beta served its purpose and consumers desiring stability should use the GA API.

@thockin
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

thockin commented Oct 23, 2019 via email

@jsafrane
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

jsafrane commented Oct 25, 2019

LGTM

@msau42 msau42 force-pushed the topology-ga branch 3 times, most recently from d019639 to c265108 Compare October 26, 2019 01:33
@markjacksonfishing
Copy link
Copy Markdown

markjacksonfishing commented Oct 26, 2019 •
edited
Loading

Bug triage for 1.17 here with a gentle reminder that code freeze for this release is on November 14. Is this issue still intended for 1.17?

@msau42
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

msau42 commented Oct 28, 2019

All outstanding items and comments have been addressed.

@msau42
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

msau42 commented Oct 29, 2019

/retest

1 similar comment
@msau42
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

msau42 commented Oct 29, 2019

/retest

@msau42 msau42 mentioned this pull request Nov 4, 2019
Merged
@thockin
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

thockin commented Nov 4, 2019

Thanks!

/lgtm
/approve

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Nov 4, 2019
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

k8s-ci-robot commented Nov 4, 2019

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: msau42, thockin

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

The pull request process is described here

Details 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 the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Nov 4, 2019
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 1d1385a into kubernetes:master Nov 4, 2019
@bertinatto bertinatto mentioned this pull request Nov 8, 2019
Merged
@msau42 msau42 deleted the topology-ga branch March 17, 2020 20:48
@brian-avery brian-avery mentioned this pull request Aug 21, 2020
Merged
@liggitt liggitt mentioned this pull request Sep 10, 2020
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@thockin thockin thockin left review comments

@dchen1107 dchen1107 Awaiting requested review from dchen1107

@deads2k deads2k Awaiting requested review from deads2k

Assignees

@jsafrane jsafrane

@thockin thockin

Labels

api-review Categorizes an issue or PR as actively needing an API review. approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. area/apiserver area/kubectl area/test cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/api-change Categorizes issue or PR as related to adding, removing, or otherwise changing an API kind/feature Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. priority/important-soon Must be staffed and worked on either currently, or very soon, ideally in time for the next release. release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. sig/api-machinery Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG API Machinery. sig/apps Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Apps. sig/auth Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Auth. sig/cli Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG CLI. sig/storage Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Storage. sig/testing Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Testing. size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files.

Projects

API Reviews
Status: API review completed, 1.17

Milestone

v1.17

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants

@msau42 @liggitt @thockin @lavalamp @jsafrane @markjacksonfishing @k8s-ci-robot