🌱 Make MachinesByCreationTimestamp private to machine collections

[praveenrewar]

What this PR does / why we need it:

• Copy util.MachinesByCreationTimestamp to util/collections and make it private over there.
• Deprecate util.MachinesByCreationTimestamp to remove it in a future release.
• Update release notes.

Fixes #5091

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @praveenrewar!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @praveenrewar. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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/test-infra repository.

[palnabarun]

/ok-to-test

[praveenrewar]

The failed test says:

sigs.k8s.io/cluster-api/util
  Incompatible changes:
  - MachinesByCreationTimestamp: removed

I don't see any usage of MachinesByCreationTimestamp other than the one that I have already updated. I need some help to get a better understanding of this error. Thanks in advance :)

[palnabarun]

I think it's an optional check for getting a signal when we add/remove/modify public methods/objects of CAPI. I am not sure what is the API deprecation policy for util, but I feel we should add a deprecation notice first and then remove the method entirely in a later release (subject to the deprecation policy for util).

@fabriziopandini and @sbueringer would be able to clarify that further.

[praveenrewar]

@palnabarun Ah, I see. Thanks a lot for the info. I will add back MachinesByCreationTimestamp and add a deprecation notice once I get further details about the deprecation policy for util.

[sbueringer]

I think it's an optional check for getting a signal when we add/remove/modify public methods/objects of CAPI. I am not sure what is the API deprecation policy for util, but I feel we should add a deprecation notice first and then remove the method entirely in a later release (subject to the deprecation policy for util).

@fabriziopandini and @sbueringer would be able to clarify that further.

Correct. Thx!

In the first step (this PR) we essentially just:

• Copy and leave the public struct.
• Add ~ // Deprecated: This struct will be removed in a future release. to the public struct.
• Add a note to v1.1-to-v1.2.md under Deprecation (prior art v1.0-to-v1.1.md)

I would say we can ~ drop the public struct in the first minor release after the deprecation was part of a minor release.
I.e. CAPI v1.2.0 will contain the struct with the deprecation notice, then we can drop it when we start development on v1.3.
So CAPI v1.3.0 will be the first release were the struct has been dropped.

[praveenrewar]

@sbueringer Thanks a lot for the quick help. I will make the changes with respect to deprecation.

[sbueringer]

Thx! One nit in the deprecation note.

[sbueringer]

Thank you very much!

/lgtm
/assign @fabriziopandini

[killianmuldoon]

/lgtm

[praveenrewar]

To complete the pull request process, please assign justinsb after the PR has been reviewed.

Noticed this a while back. Is this step required?

[sbueringer]

To complete the pull request process, please assign justinsb after the PR has been reviewed.

Noticed this a while back. Is this step required?

No it's fine. The bot is just suggesting someone for review.
You don't really have to assign anyone in CAPI as enough folks are just watching everything via GitHub notifications :)

/lgtm
/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: sbueringer

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:

• OWNERS [sbueringer]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment