Remove nodegroupset processor from clusterapi #5375
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
k8s-ci-robot
added
kind/cleanup
|
/hold for cluster api reviewers to have a look |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
do-not-merge/hold
k8s-ci-robot
added
approved
|
This looks good to me |
enxebre
reviewed
Dec 20, 2022
elmiko
force-pushed
the
remove-capi-ngsp
branch
from
dae6310 to
3d4717b
Compare
|
@enxebre i added some more text about the decision and a link to the discussion we had about it. let me know if that answers the questions. |
elmiko
force-pushed
the
remove-capi-ngsp
branch
2 times, most recently
from
03bcaca to
217a61c
Compare
|
/lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
lgtm
|
Thanks @elmiko! FWIW one of the main values of CAPI is that is could agnostic for consumers, so moving cloud provider detail up to the autoscaler is unfortunate in that sense. Let's keep that in mind as we keep moving design forward. |
thanks @enxebre , and yes i agree |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
needs-rebase
this change will make navigating the readme easier for users.
this change adds a section to the readme that provides advice for clusterapi users about which labels they might want to ignore when using the balance similar node groups flag on various cloud providers.
as discussed with the cluster api community[0], the nodegroupset processor is being removed from the clusterapi provider implementation in favor of instructing our community on the use of the --balancing-ignore-label flag. due to the wide variety of provider infrastructures that clusterapi can be deployed on, we would prefer to not encode all of these labels in the autoscaler itself. see the linked recording for more information. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbhca_9oPuQ
elmiko
force-pushed
the
remove-capi-ngsp
branch
from
217a61c to
955396e
Compare
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
lgtm
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
needs-rebase
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
do-not-merge/hold
|
/lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: arunmk, elmiko, x13n 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 |
4 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Which component this PR applies to?
cluster-autoscaler
What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup
What this PR does / why we need it:
As agreed by the Cluster API community (see this recording for more context), we are removing the inherently ignored labels from the nodegroupset processor for clusterapi. This is being done because the Cluster API provider can be deployed to many different infrastructure providers, and as such we would prefer to instruct our users on the usage of balancing ignore labels instead of carrying them as part of the autoscaler.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #5374
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.: