WIP: CNTRLPLANE-371: Clean up gates for 4.20 #2259
Conversation
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
|
Hello @bertinatto! Some important instructions when contributing to openshift/api: |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
size/L
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: bertinatto The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
| productScope(kubernetes). | ||
| enhancementPR("https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/4193"). | ||
| enableIn(configv1.DevPreviewNoUpgrade, configv1.TechPreviewNoUpgrade). | ||
| mustRegister() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This gate has been locked on by default in Kubernetes 1.33, so we need to drop it from here.
CC @ibihim
| enhancementPR("https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/2400"). | ||
| enableIn(configv1.DevPreviewNoUpgrade, configv1.TechPreviewNoUpgrade). | ||
| mustRegister() | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is enabled by default since Kubernetes 1.30: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/7cd7fea30d054efe4f2cc60073a29d2c618258ec/pkg/features/kube_features.go#L1546-L1550
Should this be dropped?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it locked on yet? Or does this gate existing force it down to TPNU clusters only?
| enhancementPR("https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/3705"). | ||
| enableIn(configv1.Default, configv1.DevPreviewNoUpgrade, configv1.TechPreviewNoUpgrade). | ||
| mustRegister() | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was removed in 1.32: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/7cd7fea30d054efe4f2cc60073a29d2c618258ec/CHANGELOG/CHANGELOG-1.32.md?plain=1#L962
Should we drop this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I already have a PR open to drop this, but yes, whoever of us gets there first
| enhancementPR("https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/2395"). | ||
| enableIn(configv1.Default, configv1.DevPreviewNoUpgrade, configv1.TechPreviewNoUpgrade). | ||
| mustRegister() | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Removed in 1.33: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/7cd7fea30d054efe4f2cc60073a29d2c618258ec/CHANGELOG/CHANGELOG-1.33.md?plain=1#L366
@JoelSpeed should we drop it in 4.20?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I already have a PR open to drop this, but yes, whoever of us gets there first
| enhancementPR("https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/4006"). | ||
| enableIn(configv1.DevPreviewNoUpgrade, configv1.TechPreviewNoUpgrade). | ||
| mustRegister() | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Enabled by default in 1.30: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/7cd7fea30d054efe4f2cc60073a29d2c618258ec/pkg/features/kube_features.go#L1823-L1826
@tkashem do you know if we should drop it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We'll keep it for now until these features are GA'ed in upstream.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unless it's locked on by default upstream, we should keep this until we GA the feature
| enhancementPR("https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/127"). | ||
| enableIn(configv1.DevPreviewNoUpgrade, configv1.TechPreviewNoUpgrade). | ||
| mustRegister() | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is beta and on by default in 1.33.
@haircommander confirmed on Slack that this will be on by default in 4.20
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it locked on upstream, or just on by default?
We may instead want to promote the feature to GA here and retain the ability to disable it if we find issues, for at least 1 more release
| enhancementPR("https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/4265"). | ||
| enableIn(configv1.DevPreviewNoUpgrade, configv1.TechPreviewNoUpgrade). | ||
| mustRegister() | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Enabled by default in 1.33: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/7cd7fea30d054efe4f2cc60073a29d2c618258ec/pkg/features/kube_features.go#L1619-L1623
@haircommander should we drop this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it locked on upstream, or just on by default?
We may instead want to promote the feature to GA here and retain the ability to disable it if we find issues, for at least 1 more release
bertinatto
force-pushed
the
clean-up-gates
branch
from
c385dbc to
dcb647a
Compare
bertinatto
changed the title
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
jira/valid-reference
|
@bertinatto: This pull request references CNTRLPLANE-371 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the epic to target the "4.19.0" version, but no target version was set. 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 openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
openshift-merge-robot
added
the
needs-rebase
|
PR needs rebase. 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-sigs/prow repository. |
|
@bertinatto: The following tests failed, say
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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
This PR is intended to start discussions about which gates we need to remove in OCP 4.20 due to their counterpart Kubernetes gates being removed or turned on by default in Kubernetes 1.33.
/hold
This can only be merged after branch cut.