Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Mar 16, 2021. It is now read-only.

deploy: add README, fix typos #124

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 7, 2018

Conversation

pohly
Copy link
Contributor

@pohly pohly commented Dec 4, 2018

The csi-hostpath-snapshotter.yaml was misspelled when creating the
file. The upstream driver-registrar RBAC file uses
"csi-driver-registrar" as service account name and therefore the
hostpath plugin should also use that instead of the (now obsolete)
"csi-node-sa" name from the Kubernetes E2E testing.

This dependency on the upstream RBAC rules should be mentioned. For
the sake of avoiding yet another copy of URLs the new README just
refers to other documentation.

/cc @vladimirvivien

The csi-hostpath-snapshotter.yaml was misspelled when creating the
file. The upstream driver-registrar RBAC file uses
"csi-driver-registrar" as service account name and therefore the
hostpath plugin should also use that instead of the (now obsolete)
"csi-node-sa" name from the Kubernetes E2E testing.

This dependency on the upstream RBAC rules should be mentioned. For
the sake of avoiding yet another copy of URLs the new README just
refers to other documentation.
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels Dec 4, 2018
@pohly
Copy link
Contributor Author

pohly commented Dec 4, 2018

This blocks the merging of kubernetes/kubernetes#71703 because I need an upstream copy of the hostpathplugin .yaml that works with the upstream driver-registrar RBAC .yaml.

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
The .yaml files in this directory depend on the RBAC files that were
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think the rbac rules should be copied into examples/hostpath so that a hostpath deployment can be done using the YAML files. The docs will eventually point to the hostpath repos.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No, please not. Having to keep files in sync in different repos is exactly the kind of maintenance headache that we are currently trying to get rid of.

The Example.md is self-contained without copies because it references upstream files via URL. I have a PR pending for Kubernetes E2E which achieves the same (kubernetes/kubernetes#71703). Let's not go in the other direction here.

The deployment here won't be complete, but it doesn't have to be. That's what the Example.md is for - IMHO.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

FWIW, I personally would have preferred a solution where all relevant .yaml files are in the same repo because then they can be updated and tested together. But it was decided that each component maintainer is also responsible for maintaining the corresponding .yaml files (in particular the RBAC files), which is why we now move the individual files away from centralized places (docs, kubernetes E2E) into individual repos.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Agree with your last comment re: having all yamls in the same repo. My thought was to have all yamls that are necessary to standup a hostpath instance under hostpath/example instead of docs/examples to minimize. I think when the config yamls are located in docs/examples, it may not be clear that they need updated as hostpath changes.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@pohly pohly Dec 5, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Moving from kubernetes-csi/docs is good. Then eventually kubernetes-csi/docs will just reference files elsewhere by URL.

But do you really mean all yamls, including the RBAC ones from driver-registrar, external-attacher and external-provisioner? That goes against the decision made earlier, so before you do that, discuss it in the CSI standup.

In the meantime, can we merge this PR?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We should leave RBAC files in sidecar container repos (external-provisioner, external-attacher, etc.).
Each driver can provide it's own YAMLs for DeamonSet/ReplicaSet, along with a deployment script that deploys all the YAMLs (including the RBAC ones).

@vladimirvivien
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Dec 5, 2018
@vladimirvivien
Copy link
Contributor

/approve

@pohly
Copy link
Contributor Author

pohly commented Dec 6, 2018

@saad-ali, @lpabon can one of you approve, please?

Copy link
Contributor

@saad-ali saad-ali left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm
/approve

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
The .yaml files in this directory depend on the RBAC files that were
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We should leave RBAC files in sidecar container repos (external-provisioner, external-attacher, etc.).
Each driver can provide it's own YAMLs for DeamonSet/ReplicaSet, along with a deployment script that deploys all the YAMLs (including the RBAC ones).

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: pohly, saad-ali, vladimirvivien

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 Dec 7, 2018
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit c1e71bd into kubernetes-retired:master Dec 7, 2018
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants