-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.6k
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
Clarify node affinity API #38032
Clarify node affinity API #38032
Conversation
✅ Pull request preview available for checkingBuilt without sensitive environment variables
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site settings. |
If you specify multiple expressions in `matchExpressions` associated with a single term in `nodeSelectorTerms`, | ||
then the Pod can be scheduled onto a node only if all the expressions are satisfied. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If you specify multiple expressions in `matchExpressions` associated with a single term in `nodeSelectorTerms`, | |
then the Pod can be scheduled onto a node only if all the expressions are satisfied. | |
If you specify multiple expressions in a single `matchExpressions` associated in a `nodeSelectorTerms`, | |
then the Pod can be scheduled onto a node only if _all_ the expressions are satisfied (expressions are ANDed). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
added the word "field"
/label tide/merge-method-squash |
/approve |
/lgtm |
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 8324ba0fe06ef6f794f83a3930bb9694b6c557e8
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: ahg-g, tengqm 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 |
Fixes #31769
I don't think there was anything wrong with the existing wording, but it was confusing. It was not clear whether it was referring to the mentions of the field or the items within the field.
Also replace @bsalamat with @alculquicondor, as a SIG Scheduling TL