Thanks for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project, in which case you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

📝 Please visit https://cla.developers.google.com/ to sign.

Once you've signed, please reply here (e.g. I signed it!) and we'll verify. Thanks.

• If you've already signed a CLA, it's possible we don't have your GitHub username or you're using a different email address. Check your existing CLA data and verify that your email is set on your git commits.
• If you signed the CLA as a corporation, please let us know the company's name.

LGTM wrt PVC. Thanks for adding this. I had a follow-up task to do this.

I see this limits the number of volumes a namespace can have. Would this be the appropriate place to also restrict the size of volumes a user can have?

@markturansky I believe this doesn't impose a limitation on the number of PVs a namespace can have a priori, just adds some examples of how to do it. @derekwaynecarr correct me if I'm wrong.

LGTM re: secrets

We need to add support for computing aggregate storage on ResourceQuota the way we do for CPU and memory.

We also should have the ability on a LimitRange to restrict the size of a volume a claim can reference.

Restricting the count is easier hence the quick PR here. The other are for you to follow up and I can assist.

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 8, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Mark Turansky [email protected] wrote:

LGTM wrt PVC. Thanks for adding this. I had a follow-up task to do this.

I see this limits the number of volumes a namespace can have. Would this be the appropriate place to also restrict the size of volumes a user can have?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

@pmorie - Correct. Just gives a namespace administrator ability to limit the number of secrets to X and volume claims to Y in a particular namespace.

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 8, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Paul Morie [email protected] wrote:

@markturansky I believe this doesn't impose a limitation on the number of PVs a namespace can have a priori, just adds some examples of how to do it. @derekwaynecarr correct me if I'm wrong.

LGTM re: secrets

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

@derekwaynecarr thanks for the clarification. I will follow up with you on those tasks.

@derekwaynecarr needs rebase, then I'm happy to merge.

@brendandburns - rebased now. should be good to merge.

rebased on latest and travis is happy again.