{"push_id":2407670390,"size":2,"distinct_size":2,"ref":"refs/heads/develop","head":"5a8f4014090a781649f8c2396561b36d0b3402a9","before":"e9e2df248f9eb9073709c3425fd576879d6347ef","commits":[{"sha":"70e8215adf3dd875e90b3411d4538e2642683c15","author":{"name":"Ian Booth","email":"adbb9c825723b09b2dbf14a15d8177bd764db5b0@canonical.com"},"message":"Allow k8s specific pod config","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/juju/juju/commits/70e8215adf3dd875e90b3411d4538e2642683c15"},{"sha":"5a8f4014090a781649f8c2396561b36d0b3402a9","author":{"name":"Juju bot","email":"5ad2d950345774e38fdffd280b9d5ad799044aa9@users.noreply.github.com"},"message":"Merge pull request #8486 from wallyworld/k8spods-extra-config\n\nhttps://github.com/juju/juju/pull/8486\n\n## Description of change\r\n\r\nWe now allow charms to specify some k8s specific pod config when sending the pod spec yaml to juju.\r\nThe allowed extra k8s config includes:\r\n- livenessProbe\r\n- readinessProbe\r\n- imagePullPolicy\r\n\r\nThe solution involved removing the hard coded k8s spec parsing and making it determined by the provider. In turn, this required enhancing the caas broker to have a Provider() method similar to what we use for cloud providers. The changes were threaded through the code as needed.\r\n\r\n## QA steps\r\n\r\nModify the caas charms and deploy on top of k8s\r\n\r\nNB - this recently introduced upstream k8s regression prevents full QA as it stops the operator from deploying https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/61076","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/juju/juju/commits/5a8f4014090a781649f8c2396561b36d0b3402a9"}]}
{"actor":{"display_login":"jujubot"}}