Skip to content

Conversation

@rashansmith
Copy link
Contributor

What type of PR is this?
/kind documentation

What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR updates the Release Notes Draft to k/k v1.34.0-rc.2

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Special notes for your reviewer:
This is an automated PR generated from krel The Kubernetes Release Toolbox

Signed-off-by: Rashan Smith <smith.rashan@gmail.com>
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added kind/documentation Categorizes issue or PR as related to documentation. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. needs-priority labels Aug 26, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added area/release-team Issues or PRs related to the release-team subproject sig/release Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Release. size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. labels Aug 26, 2025
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
pr: 132890
releasenote:
text: 'NONE.'
Copy link
Member

@wendy-ha18 wendy-ha18 Aug 26, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could we reach out to the author of PR kubernetes/kubernetes#132890 to make sure the PR didn't need release note or the author forgot to include it?
Cause if the PR doesn't need release note, this file can be removed out of maps and release-notes-draft.json/.md file.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I reached out. Do we have a limit on when to expect to hear back vs. moving forward.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Normally when we have time, I would properly suggest to wait for contributor to get back 1 or 2 days cause sometime they will busy with their own schedule. However, considering these factors:

  • timing of final release cut today.
  • the purpose of PR 132890 was for improving internal test coverage (added a conversion test to check that when a ReplicaSet object is converted to a ReplicationController) only, not end-user visible change as Does my pull request need a release note guidance here.
  • this PR is kind cleanup

I would suggest we remove this map.

cc @Vyom-Yadav for awareness.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Let's clean this up here first and later we can get this corrected in the PR.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Author confirmed release note is not needed.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @rashansmith , so it's good to remove this map

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Removed that note

@wendy-ha18
Copy link
Member

wendy-ha18 commented Aug 26, 2025

🔴 It seems like the Action required:.... couldn't been captured by krel in a few release notes, but this part is quite important for end-users.

According to this discussion from Release Announcement: kubernetes/website#51877 (comment). (view screenshot).

image

The PR #131837 should reserve the Action required:.... part as it will breaking behaviours of end-users and shouldn't be missed.

Static pods that reference API objects are now denied admission by the kubelet so that static pods would not be silently running even after the mirror pod creation fails.
ACTION REQUIRED: Prior to upgrade, ensure static pods are not referencing API objects such as ServiceAccounts, ConfigMaps, Secrets, ResourceClaims, CSIDrivers, PersistentVolumeClaims, or ClusterTrustBundles.

However the newest release-note-draft.md/json only include a part of it:

Static pods that reference API objects were denied admission by the kubelet so that static pods would not be silently running even after the mirror pod creation failed. (https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/131837, [@sreeram-venkitesh](https://github.com/sreeram-venkitesh)) [SIG Auth, Node and Testing]

Could you please also help to include the Action required: ... back to release note for this PR as well? 🙏

Signed-off-by: Vyom Yadav <jackhammervyom@gmail.com>
@Vyom-Yadav
Copy link
Member

/lgtm
/approve

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 27, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: rashansmith, Vyom-Yadav

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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Aug 27, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit bab91a3 into kubernetes:master Aug 27, 2025
3 checks passed
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.34 milestone Aug 27, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. area/release-team Issues or PRs related to the release-team subproject cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/documentation Categorizes issue or PR as related to documentation. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. needs-priority sig/release Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Release. size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants