KEP-3973, KEP-5882: split DeploymentReplicaSetTerminatingReplicas and DeploymentPodReplacementPolicy features into two standalone KEPs for easier tracking. #5883
Conversation
atiratree
commented
Feb 3, 2026
atiratree
commented
- One-line PR description: split DeploymentReplicaSetTerminatingReplicas and DeploymentPodReplacementPolicy features into two standalone KEPs (KEP-3973, KEP-5882) for easier tracking.
- Issue link:
- Consider Terminating Pods in Deployments #3973
- Deployment Pod Replacement Policy #5882
- Other comments:
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
kind/kep
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
sig/apps
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: atiratree The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
k8s-ci-robot
added
size/XXL
DeploymentPodReplacementPolicy features into two standalone KEPs (KEP-3973, KEP-5882) for easier tracking.
soltysh
left a comment
soltysh
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I left several comments for both documents.
| kep-number: 3973 | ||
| alpha: | ||
| approver: "@wojtek-t" | ||
| beta: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@wojtek-t can you retroactively check the PRR on this one. We initially kept both terminating pods in deployment (from #3973) and deployment pod replacement policy (#5882) under single KEP. But we eventually decided to split that into two, b/c the first part being less contentious started moving at a faster pace, and we moved only that bit exposing the .status.terminatingReplicas for RS and deploymentsin 1.35. I know this isn't ideal, sorry about that, but we're trying to clean our mess now 😅
| @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ | |||
| kep-number: 5882 | |||
| alpha: | |||
| approver: "@wojtek-t" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@wojtek-t this one will more of a formality, since you've already approved it before, this only moves that Deployment Pod Replacement Policy into a separate document.
| deployment will wait for old pods to terminate during a rollout, but will ignore the terminating | ||
| pods when scaling the pods. So it is still possible to end up with a larger number of pods than | ||
| `.spec.replicas`. | ||
| his KEP proposes to add new fields `status.terminatingReplicas` to both Deployments and ReplicaSets |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| his KEP proposes to add new fields `status.terminatingReplicas` to both Deployments and ReplicaSets | |
| This KEP proposes to add new fields `status.terminatingReplicas` to both Deployments and ReplicaSets |
|
|
||
| ### User Stories (Optional) | ||
|
|
||
| #### Story 1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| #### Story 1 | |
| #### Story 1 (Optional) |
We changed it recently to allow us better diff the required and optional headers.
| to support rollbacks. | ||
| See [kubectl Skew](#kubectl-skew) for more details. | ||
| To satisfy the requirement for tracking terminating pods, and for implementation purposes of | ||
| followup feature(s), we propose a new field `.status.terminatingReplicas` to the ReplicaSet's and |
| https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/97058/files#diff-7826f7adbc1996a05ab52e3f5f02429e94b68ce6bce0dc534d1be636154fded3R246-R282 | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| Appropriate enablement/disablement tests will be added to the replicaset and deployment `strategy_test.go` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looking at the code (replicaset, deployment) we have the necessary tests, so please make sure to update this part of the document to reflect reality.
|
|
||
| ###### Are there any missing metrics that would be useful to have to improve observability of this feature? | ||
|
|
||
| `kube_replicaset_status_terminating_replicas` and `kube_deployment_status_replicas_terminating` will be added to kube-state-metrics in beta. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This will be another thing to address ASAP.
|
|
||
| see-also: | ||
| - "/keps/sig-apps/3939-allow-replacement-when-fully-terminated" | ||
| - "/keps/sig-apps/3974-consider-terminating-pods-deployment" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| - "/keps/sig-apps/3974-consider-terminating-pods-deployment" | |
| - "/keps/sig-apps/3973-consider-terminating-pods-deployment" |
|
|
||
| ### User Stories (Optional) | ||
|
|
||
| #### Story 1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| #### Story 1 | |
| #### Story 1 (Optional) |
We changed it recently to allow us better diff the required and optional headers.
| scheduling issues and unnecessary autoscaling of nodes. I would also like to achieve consistent | ||
| allocation of other scarce resources to pods. | ||
|
|
||
| #### Story 2 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| #### Story 2 | |
| #### Story 2 (Optional) |
|
/assign |
4 participants
