Skip to content

OSDOCS-1002 Document Ingress Access Logging #22391

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
bmcelvee merged 1 commit into from
Jun 25, 2020
Merged

OSDOCS-1002 Document Ingress Access Logging #22391

bmcelvee merged 1 commit into from
Jun 25, 2020

Conversation

@bmcelvee
Copy link
Contributor

@bmcelvee bmcelvee commented May 22, 2020

@bmcelvee bmcelvee added this to the Future Release milestone May 22, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label May 22, 2020
@openshift-docs-preview-bot
Copy link

openshift-docs-preview-bot commented May 22, 2020

The preview will be available shortly at:

@jimmyjones2
Copy link

jimmyjones2 commented Jun 18, 2020

Is it worth specifying if the syslog destination is TCP or UDP? Syslog could be either.

@bmcelvee bmcelvee force-pushed the OSDOCS-1002-ingress-access-logging branch from b751fc4 to 7028eec Compare June 19, 2020 19:20
@bmcelvee bmcelvee changed the title [WIP] OSDOCS-1002 Document Ingress Access Logging OSDOCS-1002 Document Ingress Access Logging Jun 19, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Jun 19, 2020
@bmcelvee
Copy link
Contributor Author

bmcelvee commented Jun 19, 2020

@jimmyjones2 - thank you for bringing that up!

@Miciah would you mind giving this procedure a review, please? Also, could you please advise on @jimmyjones2 question? I can add it if needed. Thanks!

@bmcelvee
Copy link
Contributor Author

bmcelvee commented Jun 19, 2020

@lihongan would you mind reviewing this PR too, please? Thanks!

@lihongan
Copy link

lihongan commented Jun 22, 2020

@quarterpin could you please take a look? thanks.

quarterpin
quarterpin reviewed Jun 22, 2020
View reviewed changes
quarterpin
quarterpin reviewed Jun 22, 2020
View reviewed changes
@bmcelvee bmcelvee force-pushed the OSDOCS-1002-ingress-access-logging branch from 7028eec to be130b4 Compare June 23, 2020 21:25
@bmcelvee
Copy link
Contributor Author

bmcelvee commented Jun 23, 2020

Thank you, @quarterpin!

@bmcelvee
Copy link
Contributor Author

bmcelvee commented Jun 23, 2020

@openshift/team-documentation PTAL

@bmcelvee bmcelvee added the peer-review-needed Signifies that the peer review team needs to review this PR label Jun 23, 2020
@bobfuru bobfuru self-requested a review June 24, 2020 13:34
bobfuru
bobfuru reviewed Jun 24, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@bobfuru bobfuru left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A few small nits but overall LGTM!

Miciah
Miciah reviewed Jun 24, 2020
View reviewed changes
@Miciah
Copy link
Contributor

Miciah commented Jun 24, 2020

Is it worth specifying if the syslog destination is TCP or UDP? Syslog could be either.

Yup, this is important to mention. The syslog destination port must be UDP.

@bmcelvee bmcelvee force-pushed the OSDOCS-1002-ingress-access-logging branch 4 times, most recently from 24188af to b998d56 Compare June 24, 2020 21:29
@bmcelvee bmcelvee force-pushed the OSDOCS-1002-ingress-access-logging branch from b998d56 to 46d7abb Compare June 25, 2020 18:14
@bmcelvee
Copy link
Contributor Author

bmcelvee commented Jun 25, 2020

The PR is up to date and should be ready to merge.

@bmcelvee bmcelvee added peer-review-done Signifies that the peer review team has reviewed this PR and removed peer-review-needed Signifies that the peer review team needs to review this PR labels Jun 25, 2020
@bmcelvee
Copy link
Contributor Author

bmcelvee commented Jun 25, 2020

Going ahead with the merge and cherry pick. If any additional changes are required, I'll open a follow-up PR. Thank you all for reviewing!

@bmcelvee bmcelvee merged commit 060511d into openshift:master Jun 25, 2020
@bmcelvee
Copy link
Contributor Author

bmcelvee commented Jun 25, 2020

/cherrypick enterprise-4.5

@openshift-cherrypick-robot openshift-cherrypick-robot mentioned this pull request Jun 25, 2020
Merged
@openshift-cherrypick-robot
Copy link

openshift-cherrypick-robot commented Jun 25, 2020

@bmcelvee: new pull request created: #23302

Details

In response to this:

/cherrypick enterprise-4.5

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.

@bmcelvee bmcelvee mentioned this pull request Jun 25, 2020
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

3 more reviewers

@Miciah Miciah Miciah left review comments

@bobfuru bobfuru bobfuru left review comments

@quarterpin quarterpin quarterpin left review comments

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

branch/enterprise-4.5 peer-review-done Signifies that the peer review team has reviewed this PR

Projects

None yet

Milestone

OCP 4.5 GA

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

10 participants

@bmcelvee @openshift-docs-preview-bot @jimmyjones2 @lihongan @Miciah @openshift-cherrypick-robot @bobfuru @quarterpin @vikram-redhat @openshift-ci-robot