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’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Containerized kubelet is no longer experimental #57034

Conversation

ingvagabund
Copy link
Contributor

@ingvagabund ingvagabund commented Dec 11, 2017

Blocked by #56250

Given the node e2e Conformance tests over containerized Kubelet are already running and are published at https://k8s-testgrid.appspot.com/sig-node-kubelet#kubelet-containerized-conformance-aws-e2e-rhel, we can remove all mentions of the "experimental" keyword.

Are there any other place where the "containerized Kubelet" is mentioned as experimental?

NONE

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. 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 Dec 11, 2017
@ingvagabund ingvagabund requested review from dixudx, mtaufen and xiangpengzhao and removed request for dixudx December 11, 2017 11:23
@dixudx
Copy link
Member

dixudx commented Dec 11, 2017

/retest
/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Dec 11, 2017
@feiskyer
Copy link
Member

@dchen1107 Is containerized kubelet stable enough for production?

/cc @kubernetes/sig-node-pr-reviews

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the sig/node Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Node. label Dec 12, 2017
@krmayankk
Copy link

@ingvagabund does this mean there are no longer any issues remaining with running kubelet as a container ?

@@ -333,7 +333,7 @@ func (f *KubeletFlags) AddFlags(fs *pflag.FlagSet) {
// EXPERIMENTAL FLAGS
fs.StringVar(&f.ExperimentalMounterPath, "experimental-mounter-path", f.ExperimentalMounterPath, "[Experimental] Path of mounter binary. Leave empty to use the default mount.")
fs.StringSliceVar(&f.AllowedUnsafeSysctls, "experimental-allowed-unsafe-sysctls", f.AllowedUnsafeSysctls, "Comma-separated whitelist of unsafe sysctls or unsafe sysctl patterns (ending in *). Use these at your own risk.")
fs.BoolVar(&f.Containerized, "containerized", f.Containerized, "Experimental support for running kubelet in a container. Intended for testing.")
fs.BoolVar(&f.Containerized, "containerized", f.Containerized, "Running kubelet in a container.")
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please also move this line out of the //EXPERIMENTAL FLAGS block

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

done

@feiskyer feiskyer removed their assignment Jan 4, 2018
@sjenning
Copy link
Contributor

sjenning commented Jan 8, 2018

@ingvagabund can you address @mtaufen nit above (move from experimental flags section in the code)?

@dchen1107 @vishh can we get feedback on this? Thanks!

@ingvagabund ingvagabund force-pushed the remove-mention-of-experimental-on-containerized-kubelet branch from 94b7682 to 93602cd Compare January 8, 2018 11:51
@k8s-github-robot k8s-github-robot removed the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 8, 2018
@ingvagabund
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ingvagabund does this mean there are no longer any issues remaining with running kubelet as a container ?

@krmayankk we have been running containerized nodes in OpenShift successfully for quite some time. Though, it does not mean all issues are gone or none will pop up. We run conformance tests over containerized Kubelet [1] as well to see how it does.

[1] https://k8s-testgrid.appspot.com/sig-node-kubelet#kubelet-containerized-conformance-aws-e2e-rhel

@ingvagabund ingvagabund added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 8, 2018
@ingvagabund ingvagabund changed the title WIP: Containerized kubelet is no longer experimental Containerized kubelet is no longer experimental Jan 8, 2018
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. and removed do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed Indicates that a PR should not merge because it's missing one of the release note labels. labels Jan 8, 2018
@derekwaynecarr
Copy link
Member

@dchen1107 - per our discussion, we have integrated containerized e2e runs with test-grid and demonstrated no issue running kubelet in a container. this will give us a clear test signal moving forward.

/approve no-issue

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: derekwaynecarr, dixudx, ingvagabund

Associated issue requirement bypassed by: derekwaynecarr

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these OWNERS Files:

You can indicate your approval by writing /approve in a comment
You can cancel your 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 Jan 8, 2018
@derekwaynecarr derekwaynecarr self-assigned this Jan 8, 2018
@k8s-github-robot
Copy link

/test all [submit-queue is verifying that this PR is safe to merge]

@k8s-github-robot
Copy link

Automatic merge from submit-queue. If you want to cherry-pick this change to another branch, please follow the instructions here.

@k8s-github-robot k8s-github-robot merged commit 50a641d into kubernetes:master Jan 8, 2018
@ingvagabund ingvagabund deleted the remove-mention-of-experimental-on-containerized-kubelet branch January 8, 2018 16:11
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. release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. sig/node Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Node. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet