rustc_codegen_cranelift VS enhancements

Windows is supported. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc_codegen_cranelift/issues/....

> When this happens, it seems like it'll be possible to get the LLVM bits out of the bootstrap process and lead to a fully self-hosted Rust.

What do you mean by "when this happens"? GP's point is that this has already happened: the Cranelift backend is feature-complete from the perspective of the language [0], except for inline assembly and unwinding on panic. It was merged into the upstream compiler in 2020 [1], and a compiler built with only the Cranelift backend is perfectly capable of building another compiler. LLVM hasn't been a necessary component of the Rust compiler for quite some time.

[0] https://github.com/bjorn3/rustc_codegen_cranelift

[1] https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/77975

Note that the Cranelift codegen will eventually become standard for debug builds to speed them up.

Maybe one day we'll have rustc b3 backend like what they did with Cranelift

Additionally, there is gcc codegen for rustc (https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc_codegen_gcc), which is not a compiler per se, but an alternative code generator, with more architectures supported and other nice things. It's also coming along, but there's still a lot of work to do there too. There's also Cranelift codegen (https://github.com/bjorn3/rustc_codegen_cranelift), which is designed to make debug builds faster, but this is not as exciting/useful as the other 2.

For the instant reloading, that's in Sycamore, so you should speak to its devs, but as for the alternative compiler backend, it's not my project, but it uses Cranelift and works pretty well! See https://github.com/bjorn3/rustc_codegen_cranelift for details.

The more immediate goal of "distribute the cranelift backend as a rustup component" has been making good progress and seems like it might happen relatively soon https://github.com/bjorn3/rustc_codegen_cranelift/milestone/...

0 is not the request we've defined. And that makes sense. Memory QoS has been in alpha since Kubernetes 1.22 (August 2021) and according to the KEP data was still in alpha as of 1.27.

Note: There's actually a Structured Authentication Config established via KEP-3331. It's in v1.28 as a feature flag gated option and removes the limitation of only having one OIDC provider. I may look into doing an article on it, but for now I'll deal with the issue in a manner that should work even with a bit older versions versions of Kubernetes.

Kubernetes supports a skew policy of n+2 between API server and kubelet. This means if your CP and DP are both on 1.20, you could upgrade your control plane twice (1.20 -> 1.21 -> 1.22) before you need to upgrade your data plane. And when it comes time to upgrade your data plane you can jump from 1.20 to 1.22 to minimize update churn. In the future, this skew will be opened to n+3 https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/tree/master/keps/sig-architecture/3935-oldest-node-newest-control-plane

The KEP (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposal) is linked to in the PR [1]. From the summary:

> Sidecar containers are a new type of containers that start among the Init containers, run through the lifecycle of the Pod and don’t block pod termination. Kubelet makes a best effort to keep them alive and running while other containers are running.

[1] https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/tree/master/keps/...

This is where the new feature of mutable scheduling directives for jobs comes into play. This feature enables the updating of a job's scheduling directives before it begins. Essentially, it allows custom queue controllers to influence pod placement without needing to directly handle the assignment of pods to nodes themselves. To learn more about this check out the Kubernetes Enhancement Proposal 2926.

What your asking is a (vanilla) Kubernetes non-goal, others have mentioned fluxcd and other add ons that provide primitives for dependency aware deployments. The problem space is so large, that it's unreasonable to to address these concerns in Kubernetes itself, instead, make it extensible... Look at this KEP for example: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/753 Sidecar containers have existed, and been named as such since WAY before that KEP's inception, defining what these things should and shouldn't do is largely arbitrary. Aka: your use-case is niche, if you don't like the behavior, use flux or argo, or write something yourself.

If further interested, I may recommend checking out the KEP. I love how they document the decision making, and all these edge cases :).

See https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/kubectl/conventions/#subresources and https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/2590