-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 298
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
Extend the WaitForPodsReady API with .recoveryTimeout
field
#4302
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-sigs-kueue canceled.
|
.recoveryTimeout
field
.recoveryTimeout
field.recoveryTimeout
field
ebaa8be
to
c5187e0
Compare
ack, will try to get here today |
c5187e0
to
2e466b5
Compare
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.
LGTM overall just wording tweaks
Co-authored-by: Michał Woźniak <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Michał Woźniak <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Michał Woźniak <[email protected]>
/lgtm This is just API, so in the worst case we rollback before 0.11, but seeing the implementation PR is already ready for review I think we can assume this is safe to be included in 0.11. |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: mimowo, PBundyra 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 label has been added. Git tree hash: 5b1ed96312ebd0ca7e444810ccf59c1304067a95
|
New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed. |
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
What this PR does / why we need it:
Introduces a new
waitForPodsReady.recoveryTimeout
API, following this KEPWhich issue(s) this PR fixes:
Part of #2732
Special notes for your reviewer:
This is one of two PRs for this feature. This one introduces API only, and the second one adds logic.
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?