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
remove the TokenRequest and TokenRequestProjection feature gates #97148
remove the TokenRequest and TokenRequestProjection feature gates #97148
Conversation
@wawa0210: This issue is currently awaiting triage. If a SIG or subproject determines this is a relevant issue, they will accept it by applying the The Instructions 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/test-infra repository. |
@wawa0210: Adding the "do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed" label and removing any existing "release-note-none" label because there is a "kind/deprecation" label on the PR. Instructions 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/test-infra repository. |
/sig node |
Should we do a cleanup in e2e test code as well? kubernetes/test/e2e/auth/service_accounts.go Lines 422 to 426 in 3af376d
|
This test still works normally. These two feature gates are moved from beta to GA. The functions work by default. They just cannot be enabled through kubelet. |
/assign @quinton-hoole Can you help review this pr? |
This is for kubernetes/enhancements#542 (issue description links back to this PR) I think it's good to keep the e2e test to ensure that the new stable behaviour doesn't regress? /lgtm |
/assign @dims |
/approve |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: dims, pacoxu, wawa0210 The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
@wawa0210 This PR is a big change and will impact many controller-based application, the release-note description is too short and didn't not describe the full impact. And the default 1y expiration is just like a timebomb! |
What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup
/kind deprecation
What this PR does / why we need it:
part of #97148
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:
Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.: