Hongcai Ren
Hongcai Ren
That's great, you made it! I'm still waiting in fear :) I'm feeling closer and closer.
I'm trying to figure out which PR/Issue should be included in the coming v1.7 release which is planned at the end of this month. I guess we don't have enough...
> If there is something wrong with applied condition, we should not erase the status in binding status. Can you explain it in more detail? Where do we `erase` the...
> So it is unresonable to skip status aggregation when failed to apply because these two actions have no identical relationship. The reason why `skip status aggregation` is the status...
> So users will see a deployment with 0 ready replicas and 0 available replicas from status, maybe this situation brings a panic for users. Yes, I agree that just...
> Well, it's just some ideas, sort of design tradeoff😄. We may need more evidences and scenario about this patch. Yes. kind of tradeoff here.
I'm trying to figure out which PR/Issue should be included in the coming v1.7 release which is planned at the end of this month. I guess we don't have enough...
Hi @weilaaa glad to see you are back. Yes, it's a known issue and also a tricky one. We don't have a better solution for it yet. :(
> I ask is there a way to migrate the existing RB data to the new RB named by name-hash without affecting the user's use. Yes, this is also the...
I'm trying to figure out which PR/Issue should be included in the coming v1.7 release which is planned at the end of this month. I guess we don't have enough...