implementing backend-protocol#286
Conversation
|
Hi @eladmotola. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a github.com member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. DetailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
Stevenjin8
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
thanks. took a quick look at seems broadly what I was thinking. Will take a closer look next week.
|
/ok-to-test |
|
@Stevenjin8 Hey |
|
@eladmotola hey this is on my list |
|
trying this out rn |
|
Hey @Stevenjin8 |
|
@eladmotola I think I'm happy to LGTM it once you add a release not and remove the backendtls policy stuff. |
|
Hey @Stevenjin8 thanks! |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: eladmotola, Stevenjin8 The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
@eladmotola Hey thanks for working through this with me. Its not completely flushed out, ( we still need to implement support for certain annotations), but I think its fine as is. For example, it wouldn't be too hard to also support canary for GRPCRoutes. EDIT: reread the above messages and realized that you implemented canary for grpc route... my bad. Its been a long week. |
|
Hey @Stevenjin8 |
|
@eladmotola you can run 'make verify' locally to see what's going on. We're pretty strained on reviewers and we need two people to merge this PR. I'm pushing for it though! |
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
What this PR does / why we need it:
Implementing backend-protocol annotation for nginx ingress controller
I also had to implement grpc route in this pr
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #266
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: