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

Revert #16840 and #16902 in 1.1 release (used for debugging watch issues) #17004

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 10, 2015
Merged

Revert #16840 and #16902 in 1.1 release (used for debugging watch issues) #17004

merged 1 commit into from
Nov 10, 2015

Conversation

wojtek-t
Copy link
Member

@wojtek-t wojtek-t commented Nov 9, 2015

@wojtek-t wojtek-t mentioned this pull request Nov 9, 2015
Merged
@k8s-github-robot
Copy link

Labelling this PR as size/XS

@k8s-github-robot k8s-github-robot added the size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. label Nov 9, 2015
@k8s-bot
Copy link

k8s-bot commented Nov 9, 2015

GCE e2e test build/test passed for commit 6188da1.

@lavalamp
Copy link
Member

lavalamp commented Nov 9, 2015

LGTM
On Nov 9, 2015 12:12 AM, "Wojciech Tyczynski" notifications@github.com
wrote:

@davidopp https://github.com/davidopp @brendandburns

https://github.com/brendandburns @lavalamp https://github.com/lavalamp

You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

#17004
Commit Summary

  • Revert debugging code for watch problems

File Changes

Patch Links:

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#17004.

@wojtek-t
Copy link
Member Author

wojtek-t commented Nov 9, 2015

@lavalamp - can I apply "lgtm" label based on your LGTM?

@davidopp
Copy link
Member

davidopp commented Nov 9, 2015

This claims to revert #16902 but it doesn't seem to do that, only #16840

@wojtek-t
Copy link
Member Author

@davidopp - this doesn't revert the "framework" added in #16902 but it does remove using it. So it is effectively reverting #16902 from production code.

@davidopp
Copy link
Member

Ah OK.

@davidopp davidopp added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Nov 10, 2015
@k8s-github-robot
Copy link

@k8s-bot test this [submit-queue is verifying that this PR is safe to merge]

@k8s-bot
Copy link

k8s-bot commented Nov 10, 2015

GCE e2e test build/test passed for commit 6188da1.

@k8s-github-robot
Copy link

Automatic merge from submit-queue

k8s-github-robot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 10, 2015
Merge pull request #17004 from wojtek-t/revert_resync_period
2697198 
Auto commit by PR queue bot
@k8s-github-robot k8s-github-robot merged commit 2697198 into kubernetes:release-1.1 Nov 10, 2015
@wojtek-t wojtek-t deleted the revert_resync_period branch November 13, 2015 15:02
@spiffxp spiffxp mentioned this pull request Nov 18, 2015
Closed
shyamjvs pushed a commit to shyamjvs/kubernetes that referenced this pull request Dec 1, 2016
Merge pull request kubernetes#17004 from wojtek-t/revert_resync_period
7b68022 
Auto commit by PR queue bot
shouhong pushed a commit to shouhong/kubernetes that referenced this pull request Feb 14, 2017
Merge pull request kubernetes#17004 from wojtek-t/revert_resync_period
65b115e 
Auto commit by PR queue bot
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees

@brendandburns brendandburns

Labels
lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
8 participants
@wojtek-t @k8s-github-robot @k8s-bot @lavalamp @davidopp @k8s-teamcity-mesosphere @googlebot @brendandburns