NE-1303: Revert "cluster version: add ingress capability"

[alebedev87]

This reverts commit ee31fd8.

The ingress capability has been deferred to OCP 4.15. Reverting the API change to not rush on the changes in the other repositories (cvo, installer, console operator).

[openshift-ci]

Hello @alebedev87! Some important instructions when contributing to openshift/api:
API design plays an important part in the user experience of OpenShift and as such API PRs are subject to a high level of scrutiny to ensure they follow our best practices. If you haven't already done so, please review the OpenShift API Conventions and ensure that your proposed changes are compliant. Following these conventions will help expedite the api review process for your PR.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@alebedev87: This pull request references NE-1303 which is a valid jira issue.

Details

In response to this:

This reverts commit ee31fd8.

The ingress capability has been deferred to OCP 4.15. Reverting the API change to not rush with the changes in the other repositories (cvo, installer, console operator).

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.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@alebedev87: This pull request references NE-1303 which is a valid jira issue.

Details

In response to this:

This reverts commit ee31fd8.

The ingress capability has been deferred to OCP 4.15. Reverting the API change to not rush on the changes in the other repositories (cvo, installer, console operator).

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.

[alebedev87]

/assign @Miciah, @bparees

As the reviewers of the initial PR.

[bparees]

does this need to be coordinated w/ reverting any other changes? in particular i'm thinking about the logic that added "ingress" as a required-capability argument to the CVO. I don't want to create a situation where something tries to reference the "ingress" cap but it's no longer considered a valid cap name.

[candita]

@bparees I'm trying to find a slack reference, but wanted to call your attention to @alebedev87 's description:

Reverting the API change to not rush on the changes in the other repositories (cvo, installer, console operator).

[bparees]

this is one of the PRs i was thinking of, looks like it was not yet merged and is currently held so we're probably ok:
openshift/cluster-version-operator#946

[candita]

@bparees Yep, that has been deferred to 4.15. And @alebedev87 's 😃
openshift/cluster-version-operator#946 (comment)

[alebedev87]

does this need to be coordinated w/ reverting any other changes? in particular i'm thinking about the logic that added "ingress" as a required-capability argument to the CVO.

Only the API PR was merged, all the other PRs for the ingress capability (including the CVO one) are on hold or WIP.

[bparees]

thanks

/approve

[candita]

/lgtm

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: alebedev87, bparees, candita

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [bparees]

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

[openshift-ci]

@alebedev87: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Details

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.