Hi @xiangpengzhao. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with @k8s-bot ok to test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

The following people have approved this PR: xiangpengzhao

Needs approval from an approver in each of these OWNERS Files:

• pkg/kubectl/OWNERS

We suggest the following people:
cc @pwittrock
You can indicate your approval by writing /approve in a comment
You can cancel your approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@kubernetes/sig-cli-api-reviews

/release-note

@kubernetes/sig-network-api-reviews

Thanks @Kargakis !

Should we also add short names for other resources e.g. clusterrolebindings ?

    * certificatesigningrequests (aka 'csr')
    * clusters (valid only for federation apiservers)
    * clusterrolebindings
    * clusterroles
    * componentstatuses (aka 'cs')
    * configmaps (aka 'cm')
    * daemonsets (aka 'ds')
    * deployments (aka 'deploy')
    * endpoints (aka 'ep')
    * events (aka 'ev')
    * horizontalpodautoscalers (aka 'hpa')
    * ingresses (aka 'ing')
    * jobs
    * limitranges (aka 'limits')
    * namespaces (aka 'ns')
    * networkpolicies (aka 'netpol')
    * nodes (aka 'no')
    * persistentvolumeclaims (aka 'pvc')
    * persistentvolumes (aka 'pv')
    * pods (aka 'po')
    * poddisruptionbudgets (aka 'pdb')
    * podsecuritypolicies (aka 'psp')
    * podtemplates
    * replicasets (aka 'rs')
    * replicationcontrollers (aka 'rc')
    * resourcequotas (aka 'quota')
    * rolebindings
    * roles
    * secrets
    * serviceaccounts (aka 'sa')
    * services (aka 'svc')
    * statefulsets
    * storageclasses
    * thirdpartyresources

Oh, just find @gyliu513 posted an issue talking about short names for some other resources #42129

Guangya, are you working on these resources?

@xiangpengzhao I think that you can cover all of those issues here, I will try to close my issue if you can cover all of the short names, comments?

Just some proposal for short names

    * statefulsets  (aka 'ss')
    * storageclasses  (aka 'sc')
    * thirdpartyresources  (aka 'tpr')

StatefulSet alias is being discussed in #37099

@smarterclayton There was some concern about new shortcut names - what's the current thinking?

Just that we be very judicious and actually think through how often they will be used, because they become part of the public CLI API (can't change them without breaking scripts). Any time we still a two letter alias, we are preventing ourselves from using it in the future. The bar for getting an alias is inversely proportional to how long it is and how often it is used (we shouldn't add short aliases for rarely used classes).

Most cluster scoped resources aren't going to be accessed that often. We have tab completion, so I'd lean towards no shortcut for rarely accessed resources.

From a user's perspective, my first reaction is thinking the first letters of the full name of a resource as its shortcut name. If using netpol or something else, users may have to try several times to find the right shortcut:) On the other hand, using np will keep the same style with the most existing shortcuts.

Reasonable. These resources are indeed not used so often. Then should we close this PR or just merge it and leave other resources without shortcuts as they are now?

Addressed, but not sure if it's still necessary to merge this according to @smarterclayton 's reason :)

@k8s-bot ok to test

This change is 

@k8s-bot gci gce e2e test this

@xiangpengzhao: The following test(s) failed:

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

@k8s-bot cvm gce e2e test this #43466

Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 44862, 42241, 42101, 43181, 44147)