Revert "Use Patch instead of Update on jobframework."

[mbobrovskyi]

What type of PR is this?

/kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it:

Reverts #2501

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Part of #2269

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

NONE

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for kubernetes-sigs-kueue ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	fbd722b
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/kubernetes-sigs-kueue/deploys/668d57c90faead00080b1060
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-2565--kubernetes-sigs-kueue.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[mbobrovskyi]

/assign @alculquicondor

[alculquicondor]

/release-note-edit

NONE

[alculquicondor]

I'll just remove the release note from the previous PR too.

[alculquicondor]

/lgtm
/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: 51216460908e23e5003374fc1fe1fbfddb0c634c

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: alculquicondor, mbobrovskyi

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:

• OWNERS [alculquicondor]

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

[tenzen-y]

Just confirmations. What is the reason for reverting this change?

[alculquicondor]

Because Update is strict (fails if resourceVersion is different), but Patch isn't.

#2553 was trying to fix this as a follow-up, but during review too many questions opened up about whether we are preserving the behavior. So I suggested that we revert the whole thing and put the 2 PRs into one.

[tenzen-y]

Because Update is strict (fails if resourceVersion is different), but Patch isn't.

#2553 was trying to fix this as a follow-up, but during review too many questions opened up about whether we are preserving the behavior. So I suggested that we revert the whole thing and put the 2 PRs into one.

That makes sense. Thank you for the explanations!

[tenzen-y]

due to insufficient computing

/retest