Open guymguym opened 5 years ago
I think the desired behavior is that existing OBs will get deleted and the OBCs will change their status to represent a no-provisioner phase.
This seems reasonable.
I propose a change to the title since OBs, Secrets and CMs already have ownerReference set.
The OBs are a little ~trickier~ tricky. Cluster-scoped dependents can only specify cluster-scoped owners, but not namespace-scoped owners..
The OBs are a little trickier.
Good point! I forget ownerRefs cannot be applied to non-namespaced resources.
We want to handle the case where we are uninstalling the provisioner while OBC/OBs already exist for applications.
I think the desired behavior is that existing OBs will get deleted and the OBCs will change their status to represent a no-provisioner phase.