chaosi-zju

As for installation order, I browsed a lot of information and consulted others. Maybe the best way is still **`hooks`** other feasible but not good way: **`init-container`**、**`wait dependency in main...

> the approach you mentioned of usring an init-container seems like a more elegant way. we can use the init-container to detect whether the karmada control plane has installed the...

@calvin0327 @RainbowMango I got another reason for **`hooks`** is not the best practice, through my actual testing and refering the official document (https://helm.sh/docs/topics/charts_hooks/#hooks-and-the-release-lifecycle), I learned that: **If I defined `deployment1`...

> happy to contribute if I can push this forward (design or implementation) the latest proposal is here: https://github.com/karmada-io/karmada/pull/5101 now we stuck at: here are four optional resolutions, and we...

hi @sysucjl, since you used static weight 1:1 schedule type, so half of the pods will be rescheduled to member-b and rebuilt, otherwise it will not meets the 1:1 weight....

I mean rebuilding is not due to lazy mode, it just due to trying to meet 1:1 static weight~

> Then I change policy to dynamicWeight and add both member-a and member-b to clusterAffinity. In this time, I update deployment (such as change images) and I find that all...

> Thanks for letting me have a deeper understanding of dynamic weight policy. Very honored to help you solve the confusion > So I think dynamic weight policy already is...

@chaunceyjiang can you help reviewing this PR?

ready cc @RainbowMango