Open VannTen opened 1 week ago
Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED
This pull-request has been approved by: VannTen
The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
The pull request process is described here
/ok-to-test
nice finally a true config as code
for the nvidia part i would just remove it and add some documentation to avoid overengineering stuff
/label tide/merge-method-merge
Hum, I wonder if we could leverage server-side apply to handle "taints we don't manage" 🤔
The answer to this last question is "not yet" kubernetes/kubernetes#117142
/hold
I need to think a bit more about that server-side apply stuff
What type of PR is this? /kind feature
What this PR does / why we need it: Currently, we only add/modify taints to nodes (not remove). This mean is users remove taints from their kubespray inventories, they also have to remove them manually from their clusters.
Switch to replacing the entire taints array by patching 'spec.taints'; we do preserve Kubernetes reserved taints (https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/labels-annotations-taints/).
The string from for providing the annotations is more complicated to manipulate, in kubespray or in users inventory.
Deprecate the string form in favor of reusing the structure of the Kubernetes API. We keep a compatibily layer which parse the string on-the-fly, which we should remove in the N+1 release (N=next relase)
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer: Kinda follow-up to #10705 @maxime1907 would love to hear your thoughts
Regarding the nvidia bits. Setting a boolean is marginally easier, but why not just ask users to have the nvidia taints in their group_vars for their nvidia nodes and just scrap those variables ? => and just add that to documentation ? Wdyt ?
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: