-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 39.3k
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
migrate kubelet custom metrics to stability framework part 2 #84987
migrate kubelet custom metrics to stability framework part 2 #84987
Conversation
Update bazel by hack/update-bazel.sh
/lgtm I agree that we should migrate away from the versioned endpoint after this PR. I think adding this prometheus handler at |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/lgtm
/approve
A quick note that this PR will need to be merged before code freeze on 11/14 at 5PM pacific time for v1.17. |
/approve |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: dashpole, derekwaynecarr, logicalhan, RainbowMango 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 |
@RainbowMango Given the reversion of the container_cpu_usage_seconds_total -> container_cpu_usage_seconds change (from #84987) in #89540 , is it still correct that container_cpu_usage_seconds_total is listed as deprecated? e.g.
|
@bethforsyth Thanks. Would like to file a PR for this? |
@RainbowMango Great, I will do - just wanted to confirm I'd not misinterpreted first. |
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
What this PR does / why we need it:
Currently, custom metrics emitted from kubelet do not offer any stability guarantees.
And #83062 tries to make it possible to do so.
About metrics stability please refer to KEP .
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
IMO, we can use the stability framework to offer stability guarantee and drop the traditional versioned endpoint like
xxx/v1alpha
.More details please refer to why not traditional versioned endpoint.
Please let me know if we need a follow-up issue or KEP.
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:
/priority important-soon
/milestone v1.17