DO_NOT_MERGE: experiment w/ dropping some of our carried ginkgo patches

[bparees]

testing removing some of the ginkgo patches we are carrying

What type of PR is this?

What this PR does / why we need it:

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.:

[openshift-ci-robot]

@bparees: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

• 98679f6|switch to unpatched ginkgo: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
• cec9daa|try removing some ginkgo patches: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: bparees
To complete the pull request process, please assign mfojtik after the PR has been reviewed.
You can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @mfojtik in a comment when ready.

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• DOWNSTREAM_OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[openshift-ci-robot]

@bparees: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

• 31b1140|run hack/update-vendor.sh: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
• fece161|switch to unpatched ginkgo fork: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

[bparees]

/retest

[bparees]

@mfojtik my impression is that dropping these commits is fine (I mean aside from the fact that supposedly they provide meaningful performance boosts...i'm not suggesting actually dropping them right now, but if we were otherwise able to move to ginkgo v2 and dropping these commits makes it easier, it'd probably be worth considering, especially since v2 may have resolved the performance issues in other ways).

The bigger obstacle is that we're depending on a way to iterate the global test suite, and update/rename tests at runtime. So we'd still need to figure out how to patch those changes into ginkgo v2 (plus the fact that i'm sure all our existing tests won't just cleanly migrate over....various before/after-suite behavior nuances and such)

Here's the diff between upstream ginkgo v1.14.0 and my branch:
onsi/ginkgo@v1.14.0...bparees:unpatch

[bparees]

i'm also not yet sure what the ClearBefore/AfterSuite stuff is about.

[openshift-ci]

@bparees: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Required	Rerun command
ci/prow/4.11-upgrade-from-stable-4.10-e2e-aws-ovn-upgrade	31b1140	link	false	/test 4.11-upgrade-from-stable-4.10-e2e-aws-ovn-upgrade
ci/prow/e2e-gcp-upgrade	31b1140	link	true	/test e2e-gcp-upgrade
ci/prow/verify-commits	31b1140	link	true	/test verify-commits

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

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. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[bparees]

realized this was a pointless test because the version of ginkgo in this repo isn't used, it's the one in origin that matters.

trying that here: openshift/origin#27310