publish cloud-provider-kind images

[aojea]

crane digest gcr.io/k8s-staging-kind/cloud-provider-kind:v20240929-43cbeb6
sha256:cacb2da53a0d3b363bf53f11c9e0f714d7605471130a43ae7d1e161da0c3cbdb

Ref: kubernetes-sigs/cloud-provider-kind#115

/assign @BenTheElder

[aojea]

/assign @BenTheElder @ameukam

[ameukam]

/lgtm
/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ameukam, aojea

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:

• OWNERS [ameukam]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[aojea]

@ameukam what is the public url of this image?

[BenTheElder]

cloud provider kind is a distinct subproject and should be published via it's own staging?

[BenTheElder]

too late now I guess, but we should be careful about this part in the future, with immutable images we're stuck with naming and we have arbitrary nesting so we could do distinct paths for each.

[BenTheElder]

... not too late

[BenTheElder]

@ameukam what is the public url of this image?

nowhere. k8s-staging-kind isn't setup to publish yet, there's two sets of configs.

let's fix that by creating a k8s-staging-cloud-provider-kind and stick these there.

[BenTheElder]

ideally they should wind up registry.k8s.io/cloud-provider-kind/.. and we'll leave the registry.k8s.io/kind namespace for the main project for now

also let's make sure the staging GCB project etc is isolated. we should not encourage subprojects to reuse these. adding more projects is cheap and increases isolation.

https://github.com/kubernetes/k8s.io/tree/main/registry.k8s.io#creating-image-promoter-manifests

[aojea]

ideally they should wind up registry.k8s.io/cloud-provider-kind/.. and we'll leave the registry.k8s.io/kind namespace for the main project for now

IIRC we decided to use kind because cloud-provider-kind was too long and failed

[BenTheElder]

IIRC we decided to use kind because cloud-provider-kind was too long and failed

🤨

Too long where?

[aojea]

IIRC we decided to use kind because cloud-provider-kind was too long and failed

🤨

Too long where?

the size of the name bucket :)