Skip to content
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鈥檒l occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

馃悰 fixed a number of broken markdown links #5702

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 19, 2021

Conversation

killianmuldoon
Copy link
Contributor

Signed-off-by: killianmuldoon kmuldoon@vmware.com

Fixes for a number of links in our MD docs which were either outdated or not working properly for some other reason.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Nov 18, 2021
docs/staging-use-cases.md Show resolved Hide resolved
@@ -191,7 +188,7 @@ Multitenancy Management

- As a multi-cluster operator, I would like to provide an EKS-like experience in which the workload control plane nodes are joined to the management cluster and the control plane config isn鈥檛 exposed to the consumer of the workload cluster. This enables me as an operator to manage the control plane nodes for all clusters using tooling like prometheus and fluentd. I can also control the configuration of the workload control plane in accordance with business policy.

### Multitenancy Management
### Multitenancy for Management Clusters
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

since this is already under the "Operator of Management Cluster" section, isn't adding "for management clusters" redundant? Also, reading the cases, I feel like it's not really multitenancy for the management cluster, but more multitenancy for workload clusters but from the point of view of a management cluster operator

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

My reading is that this section is about about having multiple users with rights on the management cluster e.g. cluster creation, deletion etc. The above section (L153) is about preventing workload cluster users from interfering with the management cluster.

The main reason for changing this was to stop the clash between this multitenancy management and the duplicate on L153 which previously broke the link.

Any name change will do - let me know what you think will work well here.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

On testing it looks like the multitenancy-management-1 link works on github, but it's not part of every markdown so it wasn't working for me locally. I'll revert this

Signed-off-by: killianmuldoon <kmuldoon@vmware.com>
@killianmuldoon
Copy link
Contributor Author

/retest

Copy link
Contributor

@CecileRobertMichon CecileRobertMichon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/lgtm
/approve

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Nov 19, 2021
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: CecileRobertMichon

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Nov 19, 2021
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit a1ef00b into kubernetes-sigs:main Nov 19, 2021
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.1 milestone Nov 19, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants