-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 39.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
promote tls-bootstrap to beta #46799
Conversation
@k8s-bot pull-kubernetes-federation-e2e-gce test this |
@k8s-bot pull-kubernetes-e2e-kops-aws test this |
/lgtm |
/lgtm |
first two commits approved in #40760 |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: cjcullen, liggitt, mikedanese The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these OWNERS Files:
You can indicate your approval by writing |
@@ -74,6 +74,12 @@ items: | |||
verbs: | |||
- update | |||
- apiGroups: | |||
- authorization.k8s.io |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
note to self: This change is required for kubeadm to work at HEAD
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this gets applied automatically during reconciliation on server start
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@liggitt yeah, that was actually what I meant, but I see the double meaning of my comment.
I meant that this change (PR) is needed in the apiserver for kubeadm to work.
Thanks anyway!
@k8s-bot pull-kubernetes-unit test this |
@k8s-bot pull-kubernetes-federation-e2e-gce test this |
/retest |
cmd/kubelet/app/options/options.go
Outdated
fs.StringVar(&f.BootstrapKubeconfig, "experimental-bootstrap-kubeconfig", f.BootstrapKubeconfig, "<Warning: Experimental feature> Path to a kubeconfig file that will be used to get client certificate for kubelet. "+ | ||
fs.MarkDeprecated("experimental-bootstrap-kubeconfig", "Use --bootstrap-kubeconfig") | ||
fs.StringVar(&f.BootstrapKubeconfig, "experimental-bootstrap-kubeconfig", f.BootstrapKubeconfig, "deprecated: use --bootstrap-kubeconfig") | ||
fs.StringVar(&f.BootstrapKubeconfig, "bootstrap-kubeconfig", f.BootstrapKubeconfig, "<Warning: Experimental feature> Path to a kubeconfig file that will be used to get client certificate for kubelet. "+ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is the string <Warning: Experimental feature>
correct here? This is the non-experimental flag right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fixed
I really hope we'll have two flakyless runs now... |
Kops is basically totally broken right now but the fix is being tested. |
@mikedanese: The following test failed, say
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. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
During the weekend, federation and unit fought about being the most flaky presubmit. They both did very well... :/ Are we tracking that as a release blocker somewhere? I saw the fix for kops, +1 |
/retest |
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 46972, 42829, 46799, 46802, 46844) |
last commit of this PR.
Towards #46999