deferContainers - Pod Termination Semantics

[dhilipkumars]

Feature Description

• One-line feature description (can be used as a release note): Pod Termination Semantics
• Primary contact (assignee): @dhilipkumars
• Responsible SIGs: @kubernetes/sig-apps-feature-requests @kubernetes/sig-node-feature-requests
• Design proposal link (community repo): design-proposal
• Reviewer(s) - (for LGTM) recommend having 2+ reviewers (at least one from code-area OWNERS file) agreed to review. Reviewers from multiple companies preferred: @smarterclayton @erictune
• Approver (likely from SIG/area to which feature belongs): @dchen1107
• Feature target (which target equals to which milestone):
  • Alpha release target (1..7) minimal viable implementation of design and API (api) finished.

[dhilipkumars]

could someone add sig-apps and sig-nodes to this feature please.

[idvoretskyi]

@dhilipkumars I've updated the feature description to fit the new template. Please, fill the empty fields in the new template (their actual state was unclear).

[calebamiles]

@dchen1107, @derekwaynecarr I believe SIG Node still hasn't approved the design proposal yet. Should we move this issue out of the milestone?

cc: @idvoretskyi, @kubernetes/kubernetes-release-managers

[dhilipkumars]

@calebamiles could we wait for a few more days, sig-node mentioned they would look at the proposal and give feedback this week. Plus we have started implementation already.

[dhilipkumars]

It is important for our stateful application support in kubernetes.

[smarterclayton]

We haven't reached consensus yet on whether this feature is appropriate for kubernetes, and design criteria is pretty involved. Given the history of how much work is involved, I don't see any way that this will have sufficient review to make 1.7. It would be better to take this out of 1.7 and propose it for 1.8 once there is design consensus on whether we want to support defer containers at all.

[idvoretskyi]

cc @kubernetes/sig-node-feature-requests @kubernetes/sig-apps-feature-requests please comment on above.

[0xmichalis]

Agreed about moving this out of 1.7 - it's unlike that there is enough review bandwidth at this point

[yujuhong]

AFAIK, this feature wasn't included in the sig-node 1.7 roadmap, and the design still needs more review time. +1 for removing the 1.7 milestone.

[idvoretskyi]

Updated, thanks.

[fejta-bot]

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.

Prevent issues from auto-closing with an /lifecycle frozen comment.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or @fejta.
/lifecycle stale

[fejta-bot]

Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten.
Rotten issues close after an additional 30d of inactivity.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or @fejta.
/lifecycle rotten
/remove-lifecycle stale

[fejta-bot]

Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity.
Reopen the issue with /reopen.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten.

Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta.
/close