Mike Dame

+1 this is honestly how we probably should have done it. @ingvagabund @knelasevero do you know any reason why we did the include/exclude pattern instead of just label selectors?

@ingvagabund if we get rid of the `include` and `exclude` fields and make it one label selector (ie, where people can set `IN` or `NOT IN` themselves) then I don't...

This seems to be due to the fact that my local user owns my `.git` dir, but when running in a container as root that user doesn't have permission. I...

ping @Nikki371 would you like to update this PR to remove the duplicate fix from cilium and include the other changes, or should we close this?

This seems reasonable, and yeah I think it could be fine to allow both to be set. But it might be simpler to only allow setting either `included` or `excluded`,...

Interested as well, it would be great to clear a path for future OSS projects to onboard onto GKE Autopilot besides the partner program (that requires vendor backing)

@Osshaikh could you please share a sample node yaml and pod yaml so it's easier to understand the problem?

@blumamir I pushed these changes based on your feedback, thanks: * Single attributes field for resource+telemetry attributes -- I actually had them separated because I thought users would care about...

Thanks @RonFed, I'll add the Helm chart changes On your other points though, the intent here is to be simple. We currently set all of these components to the same...

Thanks @tamirdavid1, Ron and I talked about it and I think what we'll do is add the t-shirt sizes + open config per component that takes priority just like the...