Skip to content
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

Configure terminationGracePeriodSeconds without podSpecPatch #13716

Open
tooptoop4 opened this issue Oct 7, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

Configure terminationGracePeriodSeconds without podSpecPatch #13716

tooptoop4 opened this issue Oct 7, 2024 · 1 comment
Labels
area/spec Changes to the workflow specification. problem/more information needed Not enough information has been provide to diagnose this issue. type/feature Feature request

Comments

@tooptoop4
Copy link
Contributor

See #13671 (comment)

@tooptoop4 tooptoop4 added the type/feature Feature request label Oct 7, 2024
@agilgur5 agilgur5 changed the title Configurable terminationGracePeriodSeconds without podSpecPatch Configure terminationGracePeriodSeconds without podSpecPatch Oct 7, 2024
@agilgur5
Copy link
Member

agilgur5 commented Oct 7, 2024

Again, please fill out the issue template in full. It is there for a reason and not intended to be skipped, and active members of the community skipping it are showing poor role models to newer members (why should they fill it out if you don't? what's the point of a template then?).

It is also bad OSS practice and poor etiquette to skip templates in general.

See #13671 (comment)

Not to mention that this description is simply insufficient. This does not give a rationale and lists a bunch of other unrelated things too. I see one relevant sentence, which itself does not explain the rationale:

i see #4940 added terminationGracePeriodSeconds but it requires podSpecPatch which will slow things down

Again, as I and other maintainers and contributors have said before, more details is always good and a lack of details is difficult to even be actionable

@agilgur5 agilgur5 added area/spec Changes to the workflow specification. problem/more information needed Not enough information has been provide to diagnose this issue. labels Oct 7, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area/spec Changes to the workflow specification. problem/more information needed Not enough information has been provide to diagnose this issue. type/feature Feature request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants