Skip to content
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

object: declare object store hosting section experimental #14080

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

BlaineEXE
Copy link
Member

Declare the CephObjectStore hosting section experimental in CRDs and docs. Early user feedback is showing that there may be issues getting the feature to work with OBCs/COSI, possibly involving port changes between wildcard-capable endpoints and the RGW. hosting.dnsNames may need to have its API changed to allow port specs, and declaring the API experimental will allow us to do so without causing unexpected stress on users.

Checklist:

  • Commit Message Formatting: Commit titles and messages follow guidelines in the developer guide.
  • Reviewed the developer guide on Submitting a Pull Request
  • Pending release notes updated with breaking and/or notable changes for the next minor release.
  • Documentation has been updated, if necessary.
  • Unit tests have been added, if necessary.
  • Integration tests have been added, if necessary.

Declare the CephObjectStore `hosting` section experimental in CRDs and
docs. Early user feedback is showing that there may be issues getting
the feature to work with OBCs/COSI, possibly involving port changes
between wildcard-capable endpoints and the RGW. hosting.dnsNames may
need to have its API changed to allow port specs, and declaring the API
experimental will allow us to do so without causing unexpected stress on
users.

Signed-off-by: Blaine Gardner <blaine.gardner@ibm.com>
@BlaineEXE BlaineEXE requested a review from travisn April 16, 2024 20:18
@@ -155,6 +155,9 @@ The [zone](../../Storage-Configuration/Object-Storage-RGW/ceph-object-multisite.

## Hosting Settings

!!! warning
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm inclined to suggest we wait until the discussion in #14034 settles before we declare this experimental. We have had an upstream user confirm it worked for them. But it depends on our definition of experimental. Let's discuss.

@BlaineEXE BlaineEXE closed this May 8, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants