[FLINK-22264][docs] Fix misleading statement about Flink Job Cluster Kubernetes Support in Flink Architecture page

[FuyaoLi2017]

What is the purpose of the change

I noticed a conflict in the document statement for per-job mode support for Kubernetes.

In the doc here [1], it mentions

in a Flink Job Cluster, the available cluster manager (like YARN or Kubernetes) is used to spin up a cluster for each submitted job and this cluster is available to that job only.

It implies per job mode is supported in Kubernetes.

However, in the docs [2] and [3], it clearly points out per-job mode is not supported in Kubernetes.

To avoid the misunderstanding, I think we should fix the statement in the Flink Architecture page and add an extra hint note here. I had a discussion with @wangyang0918 in flink user mailing list earlier on this issue and he agrees to patch such a change.

[1] https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-master/docs/concepts/flink-architecture/#flink-job-cluster

[2] https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-master/docs/deployment/resource-providers/native_kubernetes/#per-job-cluster-mode

[3] https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-master/docs/deployment/resource-providers/standalone/kubernetes/

Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:

• Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): (no)
• The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with @Public(Evolving): (no)
• The serializers: (no)
• The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): (no)
• Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its components), Checkpointing, Kubernetes/Yarn/Mesos, ZooKeeper: (no)
• The S3 file system connector: (no)

Documentation

• Does this pull request introduce a new feature? (no)
• If yes, how is the feature documented? (docs)

[flinkbot]

Thanks a lot for your contribution to the Apache Flink project. I'm the @flinkbot. I help the community
to review your pull request. We will use this comment to track the progress of the review.

Automated Checks

Last check on commit a63a44d (Fri May 28 11:04:24 UTC 2021)

✅no warnings

_{Mention the bot in a comment to re-run the automated checks.}

Review Progress

• ❓ 1. The [description] looks good.
• ❓ 2. There is [consensus] that the contribution should go into to Flink.
• ❓ 3. Needs [attention] from.
• ❓ 4. The change fits into the overall [architecture].
• ❓ 5. Overall code [quality] is good.

Please see the Pull Request Review Guide for a full explanation of the review process.

The Bot is tracking the review progress through labels. Labels are applied according to the order of the review items. For consensus, approval by a Flink committer of PMC member is required

Bot commands

The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:

• @flinkbot approve description to approve one or more aspects (aspects: description, consensus, architecture and quality)
• @flinkbot approve all to approve all aspects
• @flinkbot approve-until architecture to approve everything until architecture
• @flinkbot attention @username1 [@username2 ..] to require somebody's attention
• @flinkbot disapprove architecture to remove an approval you gave earlier

[flinkbot]

CI report:

• d6c1084 UNKNOWN
• a63a44d Azure: SUCCESS

Bot commands

The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:

• @flinkbot run travis re-run the last Travis build
• @flinkbot run azure re-run the last Azure build

[wangyang0918]

Thanks for fixing the documentation. LGTM. +1

[wangyang0918]

cc @tillrohrmann Could you help with merging this PR?

[tillrohrmann]

Thanks for creating this PR @FuyaoLi2017. LGTM. Merging it now.

[FuyaoLi2017]

@tillrohrmann Hello Till, just have one small question, why the committer username of this PR appears as fuyli instead of @FuyaoLi2017 ? fuyli is my alias for my company's laptop, hhh. A little bit confused here. Thanks.

[tillrohrmann]

Probably because you haven't associated your Github account with your used email address fuyao.li@oracle.com.