-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 79
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
Refactor documentation #1786
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Refactor documentation #1786
Conversation
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: Amulyam24 The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-sigs-cluster-api-ibmcloud ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
/hold |
/hold cancel |
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.
small change otherwise LGTM
5744637
to
f3365e1
Compare
This PR is ready for review. PTAL! |
326655e
to
33183c4
Compare
--target-namespace default \ | ||
--control-plane-machine-count=3 \ | ||
--worker-machine-count=1 \ | ||
--from ./cluster-template-powervs-create-infra.yaml | kubectl apply -f - |
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.
Do you think we can use --flavor instead of --from now?
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.
I'll try it out and update the change accordingly.
/cc @dharaneeshvrd @Prajyot-Parab ptal |
--control-plane-machine-count=3 \ | ||
--worker-machine-count=1 \ | ||
--flavor=powervs | kubectl apply -f - | ||
``` |
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.
Can we add more content here on explaining the usage of existing resources and the different combinations user can pass like TG, VPC and PowerVS service instance?
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.
Currently the user provided TG expects to have both PowerVS and VPC connections.
- When connections are not there create the connection and during delete phase clean up only the connection. It requires another field to be added in status to mark whether connection is created by controller or not.
- We can expect combination of powervs, vpc and Tg to be passed and their connection should already be there.
If we are going with 2nd approach, we need to document that. IMO we can go with second approach and keep things simple for reuse approach.
Wdyt? @Amulyam24 @Karthik-K-N @mkumatag
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.
Yeah, I think its better to go with second approach and document it.
PR needs rebase. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR refactors the documentation for
Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in
fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)
format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
/area provider/ibmcloud
Release note: