Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

GCI-backed masters mount srv/kubernetes and srv/sshproxy in the right place #26238

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 26, 2016
Merged

GCI-backed masters mount srv/kubernetes and srv/sshproxy in the right place #26238

merged 1 commit into from
May 26, 2016

Conversation

ikehz
Copy link
Contributor

@ikehz ikehz commented May 25, 2016

@ikehz ikehz added priority/important-soon Must be staffed and worked on either currently, or very soon, ideally in time for the next release. area/upgrade release-note-action-required Denotes a PR that introduces potentially breaking changes that require user action. area/os/gci labels May 25, 2016
@ikehz ikehz changed the title GCI-backed masters mount srv/kubernetes and srv/sshproxy in the right place [WIP] GCI-backed masters mount srv/kubernetes and srv/sshproxy in the right place May 25, 2016
@ikehz
Copy link
Contributor Author

ikehz commented May 25, 2016

I haven't testing that this fixes the problem completely; I will do so before this should be merged.

@k8s-github-robot k8s-github-robot added the size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. label May 25, 2016
adityakali
adityakali reviewed May 25, 2016
View reviewed changes
cluster/gce/gci/configure-helper.sh
# NOTE: These locations are strongly coupled with locations in
# cluster/gce/configure-vm.sh:mount-master-pd, which specifies where files
# will exist on the PD for non-GCI masters. To maintain upgradeability,
# these locations must not change.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I wouldn't put it as "must not change". AFAIK there is no expectation that switching between os-distros for the same master/node instance (having some state) should always work.

@adityakali
Copy link
Contributor

Barring comment, the change looks good to me.

@ikehz
Copy link
Contributor Author

ikehz commented May 25, 2016

@k8s-bot test this again issue #26311

@ikehz
Copy link
Contributor Author

ikehz commented May 25, 2016

@adityakali PTAL.

@ikehz
Copy link
Contributor Author

ikehz commented May 25, 2016

I've tested this manually, and upgrading from 1.2 to this patch seems to work.

@ikehz ikehz changed the title [WIP] GCI-backed masters mount srv/kubernetes and srv/sshproxy in the right place GCI-backed masters mount srv/kubernetes and srv/sshproxy in the right place May 25, 2016
@adityakali
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM

@ikehz ikehz assigned mikedanese and unassigned adityakali May 25, 2016
@ikehz
Copy link
Contributor Author

ikehz commented May 25, 2016

@mikedanese PTAL? @adityakali isn't a maintainer, so can't technically LGTM.

@k8s-bot
Copy link

k8s-bot commented May 25, 2016

GCE e2e build/test passed for commit 559d8b1.

@mikedanese
Copy link
Member

LGTM

@mikedanese mikedanese added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 25, 2016
@ikehz
Copy link
Contributor Author

ikehz commented May 26, 2016

@k8s-bot unit test this again please issue #25539

@alex-mohr
Copy link
Contributor

FWIW, leaving this at p1 as it likely unbreaks upgrade tests.

@alex-mohr
Copy link
Contributor

as buildcop: marking e2e-not-required due to previously passed tests, apparent low risk, and size.

@k8s-github-robot
Copy link

Automatic merge from submit-queue

@k8s-github-robot k8s-github-robot merged commit bb38265 into kubernetes:master May 26, 2016
@erictune erictune mentioned this pull request Jul 2, 2016
Closed
@erictune
Copy link
Member

erictune commented Jul 2, 2016

@mikedanese @roberthbailey Does this PR require action by the user when upgrading from 1.2.x to 1.3.0? (Think about non-developer users.) If so, please edit your first comment to have a release-note block, like in #28132. If it is just an optional feature, please change the label to just release-note. If it is not a complete feature by itself, then apply "release-note-none" label instead.

@roberthbailey
Copy link
Contributor

No action is required. This PR was specifically made so that the data location wouldn't change during upgrade so that no action would be required.

@mikedanese mikedanese added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. and removed release-note-action-required Denotes a PR that introduces potentially breaking changes that require user action. labels Jul 2, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees

@mikedanese mikedanese

Labels
area/upgrade lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. priority/important-soon Must be staffed and worked on either currently, or very soon, ideally in time for the next release. release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
9 participants
@ikehz @adityakali @k8s-bot @mikedanese @alex-mohr @k8s-github-robot @erictune @roberthbailey @googlebot