-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 465
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
rename/drop the prefix for dynamically created resources by deployer #10550
Comments
We discussed this in today's community call, pls refer to the meeting mins and recording for details. Summary: For now, we want to honor the name specified by the user without prefix and we give user proper status when there are name conflicts with an existing deployment in the namespace. So if I'm a user and deploy my-kgateway as my gateway name, I'd be getting my-kgateway as the deployment and SA.
This is also consistent with Istio's behavior. Some context from transition istio's waypoint to gloo/kgateway-waypoint I ran into: #10453 (comment) |
+1, lets just drop all prefixes and use the Gateway name for the name of all resources created to implement that Gateway. It's easier to reason about and we need to add gracefully handling "naming conflict" anyway in order to support users who wish to create their Gateway deployment/service/etc... resources via Helm instead of using our automatic controller. |
istio/istio#55053 might be worth tracking, the default will still be to allow manual deployments though |
@ilrudie I don't think I fully follow get how this is related? |
I think one of the best reasons to drop prefixing is to make it easier to reason about how the manual deployed gateways will be plumbed up and the above is related to that use case. It's really only tangentially related though and IMO regardless of 55053 outcome we should drop prefixes |
Created #10628 to track the handling of potential naming conflicts. This issue will be used to track the dropping of the prefix entirely from dynamic resources |
notably within the context of
ServiceAccount
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: