kubernetes
/
community
mirror of https://github.com/kubernetes/community.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

fixed misspelling

This commit is contained in:
陈宏 2017-10-26 14:15:07 +08:00
parent f479f056ec
commit cbea6f468f
3 changed files with 4 additions and 4 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
contributors/design-proposals/auth/image-provenance.md
View File

@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ It will not be a generic webhook. A generic webhook would need a lot more discus
Additionally, just sending all the fields of just the Pod kind also has problems: Additionally, just sending all the fields of just the Pod kind also has problems:
- it exposes our whole API to a webhook backend without giving us (the project) any chance to review or understand how it is being used. - it exposes our whole API to a webhook backend without giving us (the project) any chance to review or understand how it is being used.
- because we do not know which fields of an object are inspected by the backend, caching of decisions is not effective. Sending fewer fields allows caching. - because we do not know which fields of an object are inspected by the backend, caching of decisions is not effective. Sending fewer fields allows caching.
- sending fewer fields makes it possible to rev the version of the webhook request slower than the version of our internal obejcts (e.g. pod v2 could still use imageReview v1.) - sending fewer fields makes it possible to rev the version of the webhook request slower than the version of our internal objects (e.g. pod v2 could still use imageReview v1.)
probably lots more reasons. probably lots more reasons.

2
contributors/design-proposals/auth/no-new-privs.md
View File

@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ is inherited across `fork`, `clone` and `execve` and can not be unset. With
that could not have been done without the `execve` call. that could not have been done without the `execve` call.
For more details about `no_new_privs`, please check the For more details about `no_new_privs`, please check the
[Linux kernel documention](https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/prctl/no_new_privs.txt). [Linux kernel documentation](https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/prctl/no_new_privs.txt).
This is different from `NOSUID` in that `no_new_privs`can give permission to This is different from `NOSUID` in that `no_new_privs`can give permission to
the container process to further restrict child processes with seccomp. This the container process to further restrict child processes with seccomp. This

4
contributors/design-proposals/autoscaling/hpa-status-conditions.md
View File

@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ Horizontal Pod Autoscaler Status Conditions
=========================================== ===========================================
Currently, the HPA status conveys the last scale time, current and desired Currently, the HPA status conveys the last scale time, current and desired
replacas, and the last-retrieved values of the metrics used to autoscale. replicas, and the last-retrieved values of the metrics used to autoscale.
However, the status field conveys no information about whether or not the However, the status field conveys no information about whether or not the
HPA controller encountered difficulties while attempting to fetch metrics, HPA controller encountered difficulties while attempting to fetch metrics,
@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ entirely.
- *FailedRescale*: a scale update was needed and the HPA controller was - *FailedRescale*: a scale update was needed and the HPA controller was
unable to actually update the scale subresource of the target scalable. unable to actually update the scale subresource of the target scalable.
- *SuccesfulRescale*: a scale update was needed and everything went - *SuccessfulRescale*: a scale update was needed and everything went
properly. properly.
- *FailedUpdateStatus*: the HPA controller failed to update the status of - *FailedUpdateStatus*: the HPA controller failed to update the status of