-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 109
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’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Node deletion via CCM #66
Comments
i commented on the slack thread about this topic , i have a feeling that a change like this should be discussed with SIG cluster-lifecycle and perhaps SIG architecture as well. my reasoning here is that this is going to be a larger structural change to kubernetes in the way users have expected it to behave, and i think there will need to be some consensus from the community around the new behavior. (probably a KEP involved at some point as well) |
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues. This bot triages un-triaged issues according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /lifecycle stale |
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues. This bot triages un-triaged issues according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /lifecycle rotten |
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs. This bot triages issues according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /close not-planned |
@k8s-triage-robot: Closing this issue, marking it as "Not Planned". In response to this:
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. |
When a user performs a "kubectl delete node [node]" , CCM could delete the node from the underlying infra. As a cloud provider, we would like that to be an option in our CCM deployments. While I understand, this may not be the default choice for all providers out there, there should be a knob to indicate what "kubectl delete node [nodename]" should mean based on CCM deployments.
Maybe something as part of this interface?
cloud-provider/cloud.go
Line 199 in 322c087
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: