📖 More documentation on v1.11 migration #12236
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
cncf-cla: yes
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
size/XL
| A provider can continue to use deprecated v1beta1 conditions also after bumping to CAPI V1.11, but to do | ||
| it is require to change following imports: | ||
|
|
||
| ```go |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does it work correctly ?
It looks like that syntax highlight is broken.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It doesn't seems bad to me
| - `status.failureReason` and `status.failureMessage` will continue to exist temporarily under `status.deprecated.v1beta1`. | ||
| - The const values for `Failed` phase has been deprecated in the enum type for `machinePool.status.phase` (controllers are not setting this value anymore) | ||
|
|
||
| ### Machine |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it ok not to write about minReadySeconds?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we didn't merge any changes related to minReadySeconds yet
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, ideally each PR should document it's own bits, this reduces the chance of missing something
fabriziopandini
added
the
tide/merge-method-squash
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
needs-rebase
# Conflicts: # docs/book/src/developer/providers/migrations/v1.10-to-v1.11.md
fabriziopandini
force-pushed
the
more-on-1.11-migration
branch
from
3407812 to
24898cc
Compare
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
needs-rebase
|
Thank you very much! /lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 0103a5ae54b557223dd9d1bc1334cfe81ec96f52
|
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: sbueringer 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:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
What this PR does / why we need it:
Another iteration on v1.11 migration doc
@sbueringer please check documentation for changes introduced by your recent PRs (I hope everything is captured)
@chrischdi @sivchari please check documentation about providers changes based on your experience in CAPV/CAPD
/area documentation