-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 38.7k
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
Order suggested FlowSchemas by matching precedence #107510
Order suggested FlowSchemas by matching precedence #107510
Conversation
is interruption of the git history worth the reordering? (maybe so, I just thought I'd ask) |
Speaking only for myself, I find it much easier to understand the interactions among the schemas when they appear in matching precedence order. The potential lossage in git is the disappearance of some comments in the "Files changed" view but not in the "Conversation" view, right? I am willing to sacrifice that to make the source easier to understand. |
This PR may require API review. If so, when the changes are ready, complete the pre-review checklist and request an API review. Status of requested reviews is tracked in the API Review project. |
I don't have strong opinion - I'm fine either way. |
sounds good. @wojtek-t, can you review and I'll tag once this has lgtm |
/lgtm |
/approve |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: liggitt, MikeSpreitzer 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 |
/retest |
/triage accepted |
What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup
What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR just moves some FlowSchema definitions around in
apiserver/pkg/apis/flowcontrol/bootstrap/default.go
, so that they are ordered by increasing matching precedence. That makes it easier to imagine their interactions while reading the source file.Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.: