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.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Vendor aws #111

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from
Closed

Vendor aws #111

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

sargun
Copy link

@sargun sargun commented Jun 25, 2020

What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup

What this PR does / why we need it:
It makes it so all the code is in one place.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
This addresses some of the concerns in #42 (comment).

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:
NONE

@sargun
Vendor legacy-cloud-providers
3cbe76d 
This commit takes the code from k8s.io/staging/src/k8s.io/legacy-cloud-providers
at 2e7996e3e271, and vendors it directly into legacy-cloud-providers. The
reason for doing this is that k8s.io/staging/src/k8s.io/legacy-cloud-providers
is actually a vendored version of k8s.io/legacy-cloud-providers, which
lives on github as http://github.com/kubernetes/legacy-cloud-providers.

These three levels of indirection make figuring out what's going on
difficult. This moves all the relevant code into this repository,
so that one commit can effect the result directly.

This commit should not change the resulting functionality of the
binary.

Commit:
commit 2e7996e3e2712684bc73f0dec0200d64eec7fe40 (HEAD, tag: v1.18.3)
Author: Anago GCB <nobody@k8s.io>
Date:   Wed May 20 12:42:40 2020 +0000

    Release commit for Kubernetes v1.18.3
@sargun
Remove extraneous legacy cloud providers
4445efa 
The previous commit vendors the cloud provider repository
1:1 without any changes. This thins out the vendored bits
to only the requisite code.
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@sargun: Adding the "do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed" label because no release-note block was detected, please follow our release note process to remove it.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added kind/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed Indicates that a PR should not merge because it's missing one of the release note labels. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels Jun 25, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Welcome @sargun!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes/cloud-provider-aws 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes/cloud-provider-aws has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @sargun. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes 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.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. labels Jun 25, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: sargun
To complete the pull request process, please assign justinsb
You can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @justinsb in a comment when ready.

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

@sargun sargun mentioned this pull request Jun 25, 2020
Closed
@sargun
Un-module-ify legacy-cloud-providers
b298c63 
This hoists the code under the module legacy-cloud-providers/ to
./aws. In turn it locks all the recursive dependencies to kubernetes
v0.18.3.
@leakingtapan
Copy link

/ok-to-test

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. and removed needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. labels Jun 25, 2020
@nckturner
Copy link
Contributor

I appreciate this, but we're not ready to move the cloud provider code from legacy-cloud-providers quite yet. When we do, we will stop accepting commits there, but we only want one source of truth for now.

@nckturner nckturner closed this Jun 26, 2020
@sargun
Copy link
Author

sargun commented Jun 26, 2020

@nckturner I'm curious why, and when? Depending on the answer to this, we will consider forking, or waiting for the change. Right now, it's fairly difficult for us to manage the current process.

@nckturner
Copy link
Contributor

@sargun That's fair. ASAP, ideally. Maybe we can get your changes merged upstream into k/k, or look into @andrewsykim's V2 proposal. Thirdly, you're right, we could copy the code over here. I'd like to have the timeline concrete if we do that, and know exactly when we are deprecating the in-tree provider. I'll bring it up tomorrow in the provider-aws meeting.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@justinsb justinsb Awaiting requested review from justinsb

@leakingtapan leakingtapan Awaiting requested review from leakingtapan

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed Indicates that a PR should not merge because it's missing one of the release note labels. kind/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. ok-to-test Indicates a non-member PR verified by an org member that is safe to test. size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
4 participants
@sargun @k8s-ci-robot @leakingtapan @nckturner