Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38154, 38502)
Rename "release_1_5" clientset to just "clientset"
We used to keep multiple releases in the main repo. Now that [client-go](https://github.com/kubernetes/client-go) does the versioning, there is no need to keep releases in the main repo. This PR renames the "release_1_5" clientset to just "clientset", clientset development will be done in this directory.
@kubernetes/sig-api-machinery @deads2k
```release-note
The main repository does not keep multiple releases of clientsets anymore. Please find previous releases at https://github.com/kubernetes/client-go
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/controller
cc @jsafrane @mikedanese @bprashanth @derekwaynecarr @thockin @saad-ali
In an effort to expand the existing pool of reviewers and establish a
two-tiered review process (first someone **lgtms** and then someone
experienced in the project **approves**), we are adding new reviewers to
existing owners files.
## If You Care About the Process:
We did this by algorithmically figuring out who’s contributed code to
the project and in what directories. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work
perfectly: people that have made mechanical code changes (e.g change the
copyright header across all directories) end up as reviewers in lots of
places.
Instead of using pure commit data, we generated an excessively large
list of reviewers and pruned based on all time commit data, recent
commit data and review data (number of PRs commented on).
At this point we have a decent list of reviewers, but it needs one last
pass for fine tuning.
## TLDR:
As an owner of a sig/directory and a leader of the project, here’s what
we need from you:
1. Use PR https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/35715 as an example.
2. The pull-request is made editable, please edit the OWNERS file to add
the names of people that should be reviewing code in the future in the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify the **approvers** section.
3. Notify me if you want some OWNERS file to be removed. Being an approver or reviewer
of a parent directory makes you a reviewer/approver of the subdirectories too, so not all
OWNERS files may be necessary.
4. Please use ALIAS if you want to use the same list of people over and
over again (don't hesitate to ask me for help, or use the pull-request
above as an example)
Pods which are evicted by the nodecontroller due to network
malfunction, or unresponsive kubelet should be differentiated
from termination initiated by other sources. The reason/message
are consumed by kubectl to provide a better summary using get/describe.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Node controller to not force delete pods
Fixes https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/35145
- [x] e2e tests to test Petset, RC, Job.
- [x] Remove and cover other locations where we force-delete pods within the NodeController.
**Release note**:
<!-- Steps to write your release note:
1. Use the release-note-* labels to set the release note state (if you have access)
2. Enter your extended release note in the below block; leaving it blank means using the PR title as the release note. If no release note is required, just write `NONE`.
-->
``` release-note
Node controller no longer force-deletes pods from the api-server.
* For StatefulSet (previously PetSet), this change means creation of replacement pods is blocked until old pods are definitely not running (indicated either by the kubelet returning from partitioned state, or deletion of the Node object, or deletion of the instance in the cloud provider, or force deletion of the pod from the api-server). This has the desirable outcome of "fencing" to prevent "split brain" scenarios.
* For all other existing controllers except StatefulSet , this has no effect on the ability of the controller to replace pods because the controllers do not reuse pod names (they use generate-name).
* User-written controllers that reuse names of pod objects should evaluate this change.
```
We had another bug where we confused the hostname with the NodeName.
To avoid this happening again, and to make the code more
self-documenting, we use types.NodeName (a typedef alias for string)
whenever we are referring to the Node.Name.
A tedious but mechanical commit therefore, to change all uses of the
node name to use types.NodeName
Also clean up some of the (many) places where the NodeName is referred
to as a hostname (not true on AWS), or an instanceID (not true on GCE),
etc.
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Fix FakeNodeHandler Update behaviour
Two problems:
1. Get is always using Existing nodes slice, and you will for sure miss any updated data
2. Each Update adds a duplicate node entry to UpdatedNodes slice
For the 1st, we will try to find a node in UpdatedNodes slice (same as for the List).
2nd - append only if there is no node with same name as updated, if there is we will replace object in UpdatedNodes slice.
Two problems:
1. Get is always using Existing nodes slice, and you will for sure miss any
updated data
2. Each Update duplicates node entry in UpdatedNodes slice
For the 1st, try to find a node in UpdatedNodes slice (same as for the List).
2nd - append only if there is no node with same name as updated, if there is
just replace object.
Change-Id: I9ef1cca2788ba946eee37fa1b037c124ad76074c
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Sleep between NodeStatus update retries
Just a thing I found when looking into other problems.
This is pretty much no-risk change fixing wrong behavior. Do you think it should go in 1.4? @pwittrock
Node controller's internalPodInformer will block main thread
if it is not started as a go routine. This patch fixed this
by runing internalPodInformer as a go routine.
