Bug 2041940: Fix enablePortPoolsPrepopulation setting definition #42046
Conversation
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
size/XS
MaysaMacedo
changed the title
openshift-ci
bot
added
bugzilla/severity-high
|
@MaysaMacedo: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 2041940, which is invalid:
Comment In response to this:
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. |
|
✔️ Deploy Preview for osdocs ready! 🔨 Explore the source changes: 9277b6c 🔍 Inspect the deploy log: https://app.netlify.com/sites/osdocs/deploys/62223d1f95c5860007cca93e 😎 Browse the preview: https://deploy-preview-42046--osdocs.netlify.app |
|
/bugzilla refresh |
openshift-ci
bot
added
bugzilla/valid-bug
|
@MaysaMacedo: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 2041940, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state. The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker. 3 validation(s) were run on this bug
Requesting review from QA contact: In response to this:
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. |
|
Looks good from Kuryr technical side. |
MaysaMacedo
force-pushed
the
fix-definition-ports-prepopulation
branch
from
63b20a0
to
abbc022
Compare
|
Yup, looks good. |
|
/cc @itzikb-redhat |
|
/cc @maxwelldb |
|
@MaysaMacedo Which OCP versions does this apply to? |
@maxwelldb 4.10+ |
|
@MaysaMacedo LMK if you're cool with the suggestions in the comments. If so, we can commit them and then this can go to QE. |
|
@maxwelldb looks good to me. Thanks! |
maxwelldb
added
peer-review-needed
|
@jboxman Maysa's looking to update content that is in the API docs. I haven't had to do that before. What's the best way to make sure that her changes stick? |
|
@MaysaMacedo It may be that you'll need to make the API docs change outside of the docs repo--probably to: https://github.com/openshift/api/ What looks like API docs on our side are actually generated from there. |
MaysaMacedo
force-pushed
the
fix-definition-ports-prepopulation
branch
from
199b370
to
b0f4c20
Compare
|
@maxwelldb okay, I removed the API docs and proposed the changes against API repo. I have also squashed the commits. |
|
@MaysaMacedo Thanks! |
|
@eurijon Can you +1 this when you have a moment? |
kalexand-rh
added
peer-review-done
MaysaMacedo
force-pushed
the
fix-definition-ports-prepopulation
branch
from
6746c6b
to
5348fd4
Compare
|
@MaysaMacedo Looks good. If you can just squash this down to one commit, we can merge this after @eurijon +1s it. |
As part of the work to reduce OpenStack resource usage[1] the Namespace is only now handled when a Pod on Pods Network is created in it. This new behavior also affects when the ports pool prepopulation happens requiring update to the docs. [1] https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OSASINFRA-2590 Co-authored-by: Max Bridges <50179998+maxwelldb@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Kathryn Alexander <37149781+kalexand-rh@users.noreply.github.com>
MaysaMacedo
force-pushed
the
fix-definition-ports-prepopulation
branch
from
5348fd4
to
9277b6c
Compare
|
@maxwelldb done |
|
LGTM |
|
@maxwelldb do you think this one is ready? |
|
@maxwelldb it lgtm too |
|
@MaysaMacedo The main and enterprise-4.10 branches are frozen until GA. I can merge this after they're unfrozen, and the change will be reflected in the 4.10 docs that same day. |
|
In preparation for OCP 4.10 GA, I'm moving the Milestone to "Next Release" as this PR did not make the merge by the 4.10 GA date. Post-GA, any open 4.10 PRs fall under the "Next Release" bucket in the same way that 4.6-4.9 PRs are already there. This change does not have any impact on the work in this PR; it's a housekeeping task to keep account of all PRs that had already merged by the 4.10 GA date. 😁 |
|
@MaysaMacedo Any objections to my merging this? |
|
@maxwelldb No |
|
@MaysaMacedo: Some pull requests linked via external trackers have merged: The following pull requests linked via external trackers have not merged:
These pull request must merge or be unlinked from the Bugzilla bug in order for it to move to the next state. Once unlinked, request a bug refresh with Bugzilla bug 2041940 has not been moved to the MODIFIED state. In response to this:
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. |
|
/cherry-pick enterprise-4.10 |
|
/cherry-pick enterprise-4.11 |
|
@MaysaMacedo Done. Feel free to adjust your related BZ to reflect this. You should see your changes in prod today. |
|
@maxwelldb: new pull request created: #43095 In response to this:
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. |
|
@maxwelldb: new pull request created: #43096 In response to this:
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. |
As part of the work to reduce OpenStack resource usage[1]
the Namespace is only now handled when a Pod on Pods
Network is created in it. This new behavior also affects when
the ports pool prepopulation happens requiring update to
the docs.
[1] https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OSASINFRA-2590