Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Do not depend on localkube when released #7

Closed
luxas opened this issue Apr 19, 2016 · 22 comments
Closed

Do not depend on localkube when released #7

luxas opened this issue Apr 19, 2016 · 22 comments

Comments

@luxas
Copy link
Member

luxas commented Apr 19, 2016

No description provided.

@dlorenc
Copy link
Contributor

dlorenc commented Apr 19, 2016

Can you explain this a little more? What's wrong with using localkube?

@luxas
Copy link
Member Author

luxas commented Apr 19, 2016

I think we should have the logic in our own code.
So we have control of both the server and the client.

If localkube wants to donate a draft, it would be a great starting point though

@dlorenc
Copy link
Contributor

dlorenc commented Apr 19, 2016

/cc @vishh

@vishh
Copy link
Contributor

vishh commented Apr 19, 2016

cc @mfburnett

@mfburnett
Copy link

mfburnett commented Apr 19, 2016

Actually, we're happy to donate all of localkube to this project - from a clean abstraction standpoint, though, I think it makes sense to still maintain it as a separate component, which we're also happy to do. Does that address your concerns, @luxas?

@luxas
Copy link
Member Author

luxas commented Apr 19, 2016

Thanks a lot @mfburnett!

@vishh
Copy link
Contributor

vishh commented Apr 19, 2016

I think localkube needs to be tested and released as part of kubernetes release. We should add it to core kubernetes, similar to hyperkube...

@luxas
Copy link
Member Author

luxas commented Apr 19, 2016

Works fine for me

@vishh
Copy link
Contributor

vishh commented Apr 19, 2016

@luxas @mfburnett Will either of you be able to post a patch to add localkube to core kubernetes?

@mfburnett
Copy link

@vishh yup, we can do that

@luxas
Copy link
Member Author

luxas commented Apr 19, 2016

@mfburnett Ping me and I'll review

@mfburnett
Copy link

@luxas great, thanks

@sebgoa
Copy link

sebgoa commented Apr 20, 2016

if you guys are interested by an alternative for lib machine provisioning, we used the single node deployment here:

https://github.com/skippbox/kmachine/blob/kmachine/libmachine/provision/generic.go

happy to contribute that.

@dlorenc
Copy link
Contributor

dlorenc commented Apr 20, 2016

We could also move localkube into this repo instead of kubernetes/kubernetes.

@luxas
Copy link
Member Author

luxas commented Apr 20, 2016

We thought about that initially, but @vishh said this

I think localkube needs to be tested and released as part of kubernetes release. We should add it to core kubernetes, similar to hyperkube...

I think I agree

@vishh
Copy link
Contributor

vishh commented Apr 20, 2016

I originally thought that we might want to support upgrades to existing
local clusters by updating just the localkube image, pulled from a reliable
source. But @dlorenc mentioned that localkube would be bundled into
minikube, so there is less reason to move localkube to core kubernetes.
Sorry for the confusion..

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Lucas Käldström notifications@github.com
wrote:

We thought about that initially, but @vishh https://github.com/vishh
said this

I think localkube needs to be tested and released as part of kubernetes
release. We should add it to core kubernetes, similar to hyperkube...

I think I agree


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#7 (comment)

@luxas
Copy link
Member Author

luxas commented Apr 21, 2016

@mfburnett Did you notice that @vishh wants it in this repo now?
Just to make sure you don't work on a PR for main Kubernetes 😄

Or what's the final call @vishh?

@ethernetdan
Copy link
Contributor

@luxas @vishh starting work on this PR tomorrow evening using this repo as the base unless we decide otherwise.

I do see value in testing localkube with Kubernetes releases so that it's kept closely in-sync with development by immediately surfacing breaking changes.

@vishh
Copy link
Contributor

vishh commented Apr 26, 2016

The testing requirements can be met by testing minikube against Kubernetes HEAD.

@dlorenc
Copy link
Contributor

dlorenc commented Apr 27, 2016

@ethernetdan Thanks for the help. This repo sounds good for now. I'll be on kubernetes slack all day today so feel free to DM me for help getting this merged.

@luxas
Copy link
Member Author

luxas commented May 1, 2016

Any update on this getting localkube merged into minikube @ethernetdan and @mfburnett? 😄

@ethernetdan
Copy link
Contributor

Sorry got caught up moving to SF but am finally settled. Sitting down with @dlorenc tomorrow to hash out details. I'll then get something preliminary out and we'll iterate from there.

s-urbaniak pushed a commit to s-urbaniak/minikube that referenced this issue Oct 13, 2016
README: add more buildroot instruction
castlemilk pushed a commit to castlemilk/minikube that referenced this issue Jun 29, 2019
# This is the 1st commit message:

Fix doc comment version.gitCommitID doc


# This is the commit message kubernetes#2:

Add hyperkit doc


# This is the commit message kubernetes#3:

Add commit id to docker-machine-driver-kvm2 version


# This is the commit message kubernetes#4:

removed label selector for registry-proxy daemonset

# This is the commit message kubernetes#5:

Add support to custom qemu uri on kvm2 driver


# This is the commit message kubernetes#6:

Improve hyperkit vm stop


# This is the commit message kubernetes#7:

Make virtualbox DNS settings configurable 


# This is the commit message kubernetes#8:

added integration tests for registry addon
klaases pushed a commit to klaases/minikube that referenced this issue Apr 14, 2022
bump gcp-auth-webhook image version to v0.0.3
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants