-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 468
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
Remove experimental from gateway infrastructure #3272
Remove experimental from gateway infrastructure #3272
Conversation
#3197 actually probably blocks this to some extent, because we need to resolve that before we release. Doesn't stop us merging this, but we need to make sure we do both. |
Thanks for the reminder! @snorwin happy to wait on your change or make add the new LabelValue field in this PR. Up to you 🙂 |
@keithmattix I created a proposal in #3284. It would be great if you have a look at it too. |
@keithmattix @howardjohn We got a good question about this GEP at SIG-Network yesterday. How do we handle mutability? If these labels were to map to Pods, it could be rather disruptive to update labels. |
In the Istio implementation, we create a deployment for the gateway, so any pod restarts would be via a rolling restart. I think as long as you're not changing a label used for deployment or service selection, you're probably fine in most cases. I think the GEP reserves the gateway.networking.k8s.io prefix (i.e. users can't set labels with that prefix), and that's what we use for deployment + service selection in Istio. |
@keithmattix do you mind adding a note somewhere in the GEP as part of this PR to at least call out the risk that changing labels could lead to underlying dataplane Pods being replaced, depending on the underlying implementation? I'm assuming that at least some Gateway implementations may not be able to do that without at least some minor disruptions to traffic. |
@robscott I added some language about dataplane pods; let me know if that's sufficient. I also removed references to gatewayclass.infrastructure because I believe that direction was abandoned |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @keithmattix!
d8aee5a
to
ef0ca93
Compare
Thanks @keithmattix! LGTM once presubmits pass - looks like another round of codegen is needed. /approve |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: keithmattix, robscott 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 |
/lgtm once the presubmits pass. Nice work @keithmattix! |
Oh the cel isn't getting copied over hmmm |
Signed-off-by: Keith Mattix II <keithmattix@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Keith Mattix II <keithmattix@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Keith Mattix II <keithmattix@microsoft.com>
Co-authored-by: Rob Scott <rob.scott87@gmail.com>
… pod churn Signed-off-by: Keith Mattix II <keithmattix@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Keith Mattix II <keithmattix@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Keith Mattix II <keithmattix@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Keith Mattix II <keithmattix@microsoft.com>
db13417
to
257cdc1
Compare
Signed-off-by: Keith Mattix II <keithmattix@microsoft.com>
It was because I didn't rebase on top of #3197 🤦🏾 presubmit should pass now |
Good catch, thanks @keithmattix! /lgtm |
/hold cancel |
What type of PR is this?
/kind gep
/kind cleanup
What this PR does / why we need it:
Removes experimental from gateway infrastructure type.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #1867
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: