You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The whole CRD landscape is so fraught with potential problems. See helm/community/hips/hip-0011 for a verbose and well written description of them.
I'd like to propose a CRD admission controller that's responsible for ensuring safe migrations. It could do things like:
query the api server metrics to see what GVKs are in use and reject removals of apis that are in use
compare field changes to reject incompatible changes within a version
reject CRD upgrades that would delete instances of that GVK
reject CRDs that reference a conversion webhook where that webhook service is not ready
reject CRDs that change the storage version without defining a conversion webhook
Each of these rules could be overridden in some way (probably annotations).
With that safety net in place, a crd-controller that performs crd maintenance using the same gitops patterns as the rest of the flux toolset would seem more in line with the philosophies of fluxcd.
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
-
The whole CRD landscape is so fraught with potential problems. See helm/community/hips/hip-0011 for a verbose and well written description of them.
I'd like to propose a CRD admission controller that's responsible for ensuring safe migrations. It could do things like:
Each of these rules could be overridden in some way (probably annotations).
With that safety net in place, a crd-controller that performs crd maintenance using the same gitops patterns as the rest of the flux toolset would seem more in line with the philosophies of fluxcd.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions