On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Gerard Braad <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Jimmi Dyson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 3:24 PM, James Strachan <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Agreed. BTW 'minikube service foo` seems to work fine upstream on >>> minikube for services with nodeports - haven't tested on ingress yet (and >>> route isn't possible I suspect on minikube?) >>> >> >> No that's my point: the fact that we learned from minishift that users >> would want to see routes in `minishift service` should IMO have translated >> into contributing similar functionality upstream first to add ingress to >> the current nodeport output. Minishift would then add routes to output, >> but still the command `minishift service` would have been almost consistent >> in behaviour to `minikube service`, with that one difference around routes. >> > > OK, so let's see if we can fix this targeting the next point release. > > Jimmy, would you suggest to create an issue at minikube to track/propose > this? > Yeah that would make sense.
_______________________________________________ Devtools mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/devtools
