Closed keisukesakasai closed 1 year ago
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED
This pull-request has been approved by: keisukesakasai Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign srampal for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.
The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Hi @keisukesakasai. Thanks for your PR.
I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /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.
Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test
label.
I understand the commands that are listed here.
/ok-to-test
/lgtm /assign @adrianludwin
@adrianludwin please take a look? thx!
I'm out this week, will look when I'm back next week, sorry!
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023, 9:16 p.m. Keisuke SAKASAI @.***> wrote:
@adrianludwin https://github.com/adrianludwin please take a look? thx!
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/hierarchical-namespaces/pull/301#issuecomment-1612297865, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE43PZFXU6OSRA7BDEG45HLXNTJNJANCNFSM6AAAAAAZLUTUCU . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
Sorry for disappearing again...
I'm having second thoughts about this - firstly (and most importantly), this doesn't clean up any existing hrq
resource quotas, so this will leave a bunch of stranded RQs around. We could fix that, but I'm not sure it's worth the trouble? Especially now that #283 has been merged.
If anything, perhaps we could add some kind of annotation with a human-readable message basically saying "don't read this."
@adrianludwin
this doesn't clean up any existing hrq resource quotas, so this will leave a bunch of stranded RQs around.
As you said, compatibility is important and this may cause breaking changes. So I agree with your idea.(leaving it alone)
And I think we should add some annotations to HRQ document.
For example, add here with clarifying the RQ name hrq.hnc.x-k8s.io
:
@keisukesakasai What do you think?
Hey @mochizuki875 that sounds like a good idea, thanks!
@mochizuki875 are we abandoning this?
@rjbez17 Yes, so we should close this PR. /close
@mochizuki875: Closed this PR.
What this PR does it:
I have renamed the name of the Resource Quotas created from HRQ. Originally, the name of the ResourceQuotas was
hrq.hnc.x-k8s.io
, but it has been changed tolocal-impl.hnc.x-k8s.io
as part of this update. Please refer to this link: https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/hierarchical-namespaces/issues/275#issuecomment-1564981395.Operation confirmation:
I have confirmed that the name of the Resource Quota created from HRQ is
local-impl-hrq.hnc.x-k8s.io
.The confirmation steps are as follows.
ns relationship:
create HRQ:
Check the names of the ResourceQuotas created from HRQ:
Tested:
Unit and E2E tests has passed.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/hierarchical-namespaces/issues/275