WIP: 2024 sig etcd report #8339
Conversation
Which issue(s) this PR fixes: Fixes kubernetes#8263 /hold /sig etcd /cc @ahrtr @serathius @jmhbnz
k8s-ci-robot
added
do-not-merge/hold
|
Keywords which can automatically close issues and at(@) or hashtag(#) mentions are not allowed in commit messages. The list of commits with invalid commit messages:
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-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
cncf-cla: yes
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: wenjiaswe 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 |
k8s-ci-robot
added
area/annual-reports
| - Major SIG level KEPs. | ||
| - [etcd downgrade](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/tree/master/keps/sig-etcd/4326-downgrade) is implemented to support etcd v3.6 and above | ||
| - Introduced [Server Feature Gate in etcd](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/pull/4610) | ||
| - [Working Group etcd-operator](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/wg-etcd-operator/README.md) was co-founded by SIG etcd and SIG cluster lifecycle | ||
|
|
||
| 2. Are there any areas and/or subprojects that your group needs help with (e.g. fewer than 2 active OWNERS)? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure if those should include areas we need more help because we are building them up or we are missing owners.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You are right, we should include the ones we have gaps with. Maybe the list below? Anything else?
| @@ -4,35 +4,32 @@ | |||
|
|
|||
| 1. What work did the SIG do this year that should be highlighted? | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we include the Prow job migration? Even though we didn't finish it in 2024, we made a lot of progress, including migrating all of our ARM64 jobs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we include the Prow job migration?
why not? I think so.
|
@wenjiaswe there are some issues with the PR , invalid commit message, please ping me once this is ready to merge Thanks |
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #8263
/hold
/sig etcd
/cc @ahrtr @serathius @jmhbnz
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #