Skip to content

Remove Kube*Overcommit alerts #14123

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 28, 2022
Merged

Remove Kube*Overcommit alerts #14123

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 28, 2022

Conversation

vulkoingim
Copy link
Contributor

Description

https://github.com/gitpod-io/ops/pull/6259 enables autoscaling on the only nodepool that doesn't have it still, which renders these alerts obsolete.

Related Issue(s)

Fixes #

How to test

Release Notes

NONE

Documentation

Werft options:

  • /werft with-local-preview
    If enabled this will build install/preview
  • /werft with-preview
  • /werft with-large-vm
  • /werft with-integration-tests=all
    Valid options are all, workspace, webapp, ide

@ArthurSens
Copy link
Contributor

ArthurSens commented Oct 26, 2022

Not sure why we're the owners of the platform folder 🤔

Would it make sense to change the ownership?

@vulkoingim vulkoingim force-pushed the aa/rm-overcommit-alert branch from 9f35186 to 15a6f9c Compare October 27, 2022 07:12
Copy link
Contributor

@ArthurSens ArthurSens left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hey @vulkoingim, I'm approving just because I don't want to block this for too long 😬

I'm just not sure that the change to CODEOWNERS worked as expected, I would assume that the review-request would have changed 🤔

@roboquat roboquat merged commit bfe9171 into main Oct 28, 2022
@roboquat roboquat deleted the aa/rm-overcommit-alert branch October 28, 2022 10:39
@vulkoingim
Copy link
Contributor Author

vulkoingim commented Oct 28, 2022

Hey @vulkoingim, I'm approving just because I don't want to block this for too long 😬

I'm just not sure that the change to CODEOWNERS worked as expected, I would assume that the review-request would have changed 🤔

Thanks! The CODEOWNERS is read from the main branch - so the change will take effect for all following PRs :) Otherwise anyone can modify the owners file and set themselves as approvers 😄

@ArthurSens
Copy link
Contributor

ArthurSens commented Oct 28, 2022

Hey @vulkoingim, I'm approving just because I don't want to block this for too long 😬
I'm just not sure that the change to CODEOWNERS worked as expected, I would assume that the review-request would have changed 🤔

Thanks! The CODEOWNERS is read from the main branch - so the change will take effect for all following PRs :) Otherwise anyone can modify the owners file and set themselves as approvers 😄

Oh yes of course

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants