Create GlobalnetEgressIP CRD types and associated items

[sridhargaddam]

This PR adds the necessary types and includes the clientsets,
informers and listers using codegenerator.

Fixes issue: #1157
Signed-Off-by: Sridhar Gaddam sgaddam@redhat.com

[tpantelis]

Why is the new CRD in v1alpha1 and not v1?

[sridhargaddam]

Why is the new CRD in v1alpha1 and not v1?

This will be the first implementation of the CRD and there is a potential for changes in the future based on the feedback we get from users. So, I wanted to use v1alpha1. Do you see any problem with this @tpantelis ?

[tpantelis]

Why is the new CRD in v1alpha1 and not v1?

This will be the first implementation of the CRD and there is a potential for changes in the future based on the feedback we get from users. So, I wanted to use v1alpha1. Do you see any problem with this @tpantelis ?

It's not a problem - just wondering what the version progression would be. Would GA release graduate to v1 such that we won't have to worry about supporting/migrating v1alpha1?

[sridhargaddam]

Why is the new CRD in v1alpha1 and not v1?

This will be the first implementation of the CRD and there is a potential for changes in the future based on the feedback we get from users. So, I wanted to use v1alpha1. Do you see any problem with this @tpantelis ?

It's not a problem - just wondering what the version progression would be. Would GA release graduate to v1 such that we won't have to worry about supporting/migrating v1alpha1?

Thats a good point @tpantelis . I'd like to hear from @mangelajo, @nyechiel @skitt @mkolesnik if we should go with v1 itself or use v1alpha1.

[skitt]

Why is the new CRD in v1alpha1 and not v1?

This will be the first implementation of the CRD and there is a potential for changes in the future based on the feedback we get from users. So, I wanted to use v1alpha1. Do you see any problem with this @tpantelis ?

It's not a problem - just wondering what the version progression would be. Would GA release graduate to v1 such that we won't have to worry about supporting/migrating v1alpha1?

Thats a good point @tpantelis . I'd like to hear from @mangelajo, @nyechiel @skitt @mkolesnik if we should go with v1 itself or use v1alpha1.

IMO, as long as we’re not reasonably convinced we won’t need to change the CRD, we should start with v1alpha1.

The GA point in general is a good one, we’ll need to address that sooner rather than later (across all CRDs).

[skitt]

Why is the new CRD in v1alpha1 and not v1?

This will be the first implementation of the CRD and there is a potential for changes in the future based on the feedback we get from users. So, I wanted to use v1alpha1. Do you see any problem with this @tpantelis ?

It's not a problem - just wondering what the version progression would be. Would GA release graduate to v1 such that we won't have to worry about supporting/migrating v1alpha1?

Thats a good point @tpantelis . I'd like to hear from @mangelajo, @nyechiel @skitt @mkolesnik if we should go with v1 itself or use v1alpha1.

IMO, as long as we’re not reasonably convinced we won’t need to change the CRD, we should start with v1alpha1.

The GA point in general is a good one, we’ll need to address that sooner rather than later (across all CRDs).

I’d missed the fact that all the existing Submariner CRDs are already v1; so let’s stick to that now that we’ve set the precedent.

[sridhargaddam]

v1alpha1 modified lot of existing files and it was kind of mess to revert those changes manually.
I pushed the following PR that uses v1 - #1172

Please review the above PR, thanks.