-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.5k
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
KEP-3243: Update milestone v1.33 to v1.34 and add the new feature gate to control the design change of TopologySpreadConstraint's matchLabelKeys #5205
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: mochizuki875 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 |
/cc @sanposhiho |
1a3dbd2
to
4e8004a
Compare
keps/sig-scheduling/3243-respect-pod-topology-spread-after-rolling-upgrades/README.md
Show resolved
Hide resolved
4e8004a
to
39ebbdc
Compare
I've merged #5214 into this change. |
keps/sig-scheduling/3243-respect-pod-topology-spread-after-rolling-upgrades/README.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
keps/sig-scheduling/3243-respect-pod-topology-spread-after-rolling-upgrades/README.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
keps/sig-scheduling/3243-respect-pod-topology-spread-after-rolling-upgrades/README.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
keps/sig-scheduling/3243-respect-pod-topology-spread-after-rolling-upgrades/README.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
b154ec0
to
8148d60
Compare
8148d60
to
d91c6ff
Compare
@sanposhiho |
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.
Update the implementation history?
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.
Thank you for letting me know.
I've updated.
enhancements/keps/sig-scheduling/3243-respect-pod-topology-spread-after-rolling-upgrades/README.md
Line 1084 in c06d5c3
- 2025-04-07: Add a new feature flag `MatchLabelKeysInPodTopologySpreadSelectorMerge` and update milestone |
We're going to change kube-scheduler to only concern `matchLabelKeys` from the default constraints at v1.34 for efficiency, | ||
So, for a safe upgrade path from v1.33 to v1.34, kube-scheduler would handle not only `matchLabelKeys` | ||
from the default constraints, but also all incoming pods during v1.34. | ||
We're going to change kube-scheduler to only concern `matchLabelKeys` from the default constraints at v1.35 for efficiency, |
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.
So, are we planning to make the MatchLabelKeysInPodTopologySpreadSelectorMerge GA in v1.35? Without this, we won't be able to change the kube-scheduler's code this way.
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.
Since we have not met the v1.33 lifecycle, I think every step should shift one version forward as below.
- Merge this design change as beta and scheduler will handle all
matchLabelKeys
: v1.33 -> v1.34 - Change scheduler to only concern
matchLabelKeys
from the default constraints: v1.34 -> v1.35 - Change
MatchLabelKeysInPodTopologySpread
(includingMatchLabelKeysInPodTopologySpreadSelectorMerge
) to GA from beta: v1.35 -> v1.36
Therefore I think the change for scheduler was previously planned to take place during beta.
But if needed, we can change the plan for scheduler change from v1.35 to v1.36 to align with the GA of MatchLabelKeysInPodTopologySpreadSelectorMerge
.
One-line PR description: Update KEP milestone v1.33 to v1.34 since the code change have not meet the v1.33 code freeze, and I've added the new feature gate for #129874 as discussed in kubernetes/kubernetes#129874 (comment).
Issue link: #3243
Other comments: