Can one of the admins verify that this patch is reasonable to test? (reply "ok to test", or if you trust the user, reply "add to whitelist")

If this message is too spammy, please complain to ixdy.

@k8s-bot ok to test

On Wednesday, August 19, 2015, Kubernetes Bot notifications@github.com
wrote:

Can one of the admins verify that this patch is reasonable to test? (reply
"ok to test", or if you trust the user, reply "add to whitelist")

If this message is too spammy, please complain to ixdy.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#12910 (comment)
.

GCE e2e build/test failed for commit e9694a22b32bb2b4d881fb1fd8213438c3c0f40e.

• Build Log
• Test Artifacts
• Internal Jenkins Results

GCE e2e build/test failed for commit bfb5cffdc21f9c3e2501009f39ca20ef9080a88d.

• Build Log
• Test Artifacts
• Internal Jenkins Results

GCE e2e build/test failed for commit b24ad73d32ada6f39f3891cd64abfa8b273a428c.

• Build Log
• Test Artifacts
• Internal Jenkins Results

I think I've reached a state where I can focus entirely on the controller logic, and that's the plan for the next few days.

GCE e2e build/test failed for commit 8d9777a2a1f6bad79971938f8b632c239fa8ff2e.

• Build Log
• Test Artifacts
• Internal Jenkins Results

I am not familiar enough with these components to be a useful reviewer. Reassigning to @davidopp to review/redirect.

Assigning to @erictune who has been shepherding the job controller work.

GCE e2e build/test passed for commit 6af2890719b329b5fcaf70ebb74156708f4ea1c2.

• Build Log
• Test Artifacts
• Internal Jenkins Results

@erictune after talking to @smarterclayton I've decided to split the work into two separate PRs to simplify the reviews. This one contains the new job resource, validation, generated stuff and storage (1st commit). The 2nd commit contains the client API for jobs. The controller part will be in a separate PR. Does it make sense or should I split it more?

Labelling this PR as size/XL

Rebased, tests should be ok now. For the record, previous commit with @smarterclayton comments was soltysh@3ab923f

GCE e2e build/test passed for commit 067f96514c4309fc081f7ae3224e76223d62f26c.

• Build Log
• Test Artifacts
• Internal Jenkins Results

GCE e2e build/test passed for commit 08fbc3126ebfeb01c0fb8a64af1a4b82ad8ff2f6.

• Build Log
• Test Artifacts
• Internal Jenkins Results

LGTM

Please squash commits.

Squashed.

GCE e2e build/test passed for commit e55c59e.

• Build Log
• Test Artifacts
• Internal Jenkins Results

Continuous integration appears to have missed, closing and re-opening to trigger it

@k8s-bot test this [submit-queue is verifying that this PR is safe to merge]

GCE e2e build/test passed for commit e55c59e.

• Build Log
• Test Artifacts
• Internal Jenkins Results

Automatic merge from SubmitQueue

@soltysh I see this got merged without docs changes. Are those gonna be part of #13254? Not sure where experimental APIs get documented, but we should figure it out.

@karlkfi It seems we do not do automatic generation of static docs for experimental api group. We should. Filed #13883 for that.

I was thinking more like a user-guide section for the new API/resource, but yes, those too.

@erictune thanks
@karlkfi I'll be adding samples as a separate PR to current ones. These are already quite big, I don't won't to clutter them more. I'll tag you in one.