✨ Rebase for k/k 1.32

[gman0]

Summary

This PR updates k8s to 1.32 and the kcp-dev/apimachinery dependencies.

Some changes that k8s.io/code-generator 0.32.0 offers are not part of this PR, specifically:

• CBOR support:
  • kubernetes/code-generator@448d651
  • kubernetes/code-generator@9158437
  • Related KEP: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/tree/master/keps/sig-api-machinery/4222-cbor-serializer
• "prefer protobuf" flag:
  • kubernetes/code-generator@2ce8296

These may be added in separate PRs later.

Related issue(s)

Part of kcp-dev/kcp#3209

Release Notes

Updated dependencies for k8s 1.32

[kcp-ci-bot]

Hi @gman0. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kcp-dev 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.

[gman0]

Dependency on client-go, which in turn depends on code-generator. Do we update examples/ in a separate PR?

[embik]

Looking back at my PRs, I updated code-generator first: #90 and then client-go: kcp-dev/client-go#37.

But It's a little messy indeed.

[embik]

(also see #75, btw)

[gman0]

Oki, leaving the client-go dependency for now.

[gman0]

I've restructured the commits a bit for hopefully easier review. Also, please see the links in the PR description related to the missing commits that are present in k8s.io/code-generator. Let me know if we should open issues to track progress on them.

[mjudeikis]

/lgtm
/hold
/approve

waiting for other to review. For now this in the main, so once happy we can cut the release.

Maybe worth trying to use the "personal branch" to see if k/k fork will behave before merging?

[kcp-ci-bot]

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: 8e02e39258a6a3d21b87040f1cd8965010cdb20b

[kcp-ci-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: mjudeikis

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 [mjudeikis]

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

[kcp-ci-bot]

@gman0: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Required	Rerun command
pull-code-generator-test	86be522	link	true	/test pull-code-generator-test

Full PR test history

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. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[gman0]

@mjudeikis yes, let's wait for the fork first! Still need to send the PR for client-go, and will continue with k/k fork rebase and if all goes well we can merge them all.

[kcp-ci-bot]

New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed.

[gman0]

I've missed setting the latest build image tag for the "pull-code-generator-test" prow job.