cri-api policies #566
cri-api policies #566
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
sig/node
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
size/L
|
/cc @sftim |
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
SergeyKanzhelev
force-pushed
the
cri-api-policy
branch
from
ad62c74 to
7cde759
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
/hold
as there's feedback you could incorporate - if you'd like to. @SergeyKanzhelev this is OK to unhold; we expect that (and are confident that) you will follow our code of conduct and good practice.
/lgtm
/approve
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
do-not-merge/hold
k8s-ci-robot
added
lgtm
SergeyKanzhelev
force-pushed
the
cri-api-policy
branch
from
7cde759 to
22ee34c
Compare
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
lgtm
|
I feel like either we should explain what leads us to these two runtimes in particular in a little detail and indirect through some name that refers to both (so the diff isn't huge if we add a third or something later, and so it's clear what the criteria is to be in that list) maybe "supported CRI implementations" or something like that? This doc winds up saying "cri-o and containerd" many times. alternatively just say "must be in two implementations"? |
We intentionally keeping it specific. It was the very first feedback from early drafts of the document. I put a notice on top and a whole section on two participating runtimes. |
SergeyKanzhelev
force-pushed
the
cri-api-policy
branch
2 times, most recently
from
c6a9e42 to
d3c2bf6
Compare
|
If we can merge this and iterate, let's do that. |
|
@BenTheElder if we want to make it easy to add a third later, we can try to use the exact same string each occurrence, so that a replace operation is all that's needed. |
|
/hold cancel No current LGTM |
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
do-not-merge/hold
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
approved
that's fine, I think we should be clear about what criteria would permit a third being included or cause one to be removed. That still doesn't seem to be addressed in much detail. |
SergeyKanzhelev
force-pushed
the
cri-api-policy
branch
2 times, most recently
from
113147d to
c58ceef
Compare
| @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ | |||
| aliases: | |||
| sig-architecture-approvers: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @dims - this helps me review!
| weight: 51 | ||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| CRI is a plugin interface which enables the kubelet to use a wide variety of container runtimes, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this file is mostly copied from kubernetes/kubernetes#129789
There was a problem hiding this comment.
so it was approved for a long time, just moving it in the proper place
| release of containerd and CRI-O implementing APIs needed for the feature in | ||
| those container runtimes. And those APIs **must not** be marked as experimental | ||
| features ([containerd experimental features](https://containerd.io/releases/#experimental-features)). | ||
| For the beta, neither container runtime has a notion of beta feature or release and |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Speaking with my containerd hat on:
- We do not have betas for features but we do mark certain features as experimental (called out above)
- containerd does have beta releases and RCs for new minor versions, but the beta and RC periods are relatively short. We are formalizing some policy changes around this in Update RELEASES.md for new release schedule and LTS policy containerd/containerd#11294 now
I don't think this needs to change the general policy for features in Kubernetes, but we may want to clarify that the notion of "beta" is not equivalent between Kubernetes and containerd.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In general, we could emphasize that external projects have their own ideas and jargon concerning stability (or not).
SergeyKanzhelev
force-pushed
the
cri-api-policy
branch
from
5ff3d03 to
4ef2173
Compare
SergeyKanzhelev
force-pushed
the
cri-api-policy
branch
from
4ef2173 to
b05db2f
Compare
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
| @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ | |||
| aliases: | |||
| sig-architecture-approvers: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @dims - this helps me review!
| version'd kubelet and older versioned crictl. This is a supported scenario within | ||
| the version skew policy. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Version Skew Policy for CRI API |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: should use sentence case
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: samuelkarp, SergeyKanzhelev, sftim 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 |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
Moving from kubernetes/website#49455
Policies of CRI API development.
The consensus was recieved via google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y42XrUPrm-6DZby1RQjexYYoNn822IRR6igsOiy_62c/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.nzjfadot7nt7 and presented on both - SIG Node and SIG Atchitecture.
I am following the example of https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/using-api/deprecation-policy/ placing it under the "Reference" section of docs.
/sig node