v1 is specified in apiVersion field

[madorn]

The use of not here may be confusing to newcomers.

Is the intention to suggest the apiVersion field defaults to v1 unless otherwise specified?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
For 1.7 Features: set Milestone to 1.7 and Base Branch to release-1.7
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

NOTE: Please check the “Allow edits from maintainers” box below to allow
reviewers fix problems on your patch and speed up the review process.
Please delete this note before submitting the pull request.

---

This change is 

[ahmetb]

I am not equipped to answer this question myself (I am confused too) so I will defer the tech review to someone else. cc: @kubernetes/sig-api-machinery-pr-reviews

[sttts]

it is meant that the apiVersion value is not /v1 (i.e. empty group name), but v1.

[ahmetb]

@madorn 👋 hello there, do you have time to address the PR feedback?

[madorn]

@ahmetb @sttts thanks for clarification. it would be more clear to newcomers if we remove the use of not here and just suggest using apiVersion: v1.

[sttts]

maybe we should reformulate the sentence and avoid "be or not be specified". Seems to be hard to understand.

[chenopis]

So, should the sentence be:

The core group, often referred to as legacy, is at REST path /api/v1 and can be accessed using apiVersion: v1.

[sttts]

"can be accessed using ..." still sounds odd.

How about

The core group, often referred to as the "legacy group", is at the REST path /api/v1 and uses `apiVersion: v1`.

E.g. the same wording as in the next paragraph.

[chenopis]

@madorn @sttts Is my suggestion for rewording the sentence sufficient?

[steveperry-53]

Ping @madorn @sttts

[steveperry-53]

Sorry, I don't agree with this change. The group name "core" is not specified as part of the apiVersion field. So this sentence seems incorrect to me:

the “core” ... group, which is at REST path /api/v1 and is specified as part of the apiVersion field, e.g. apiVersion: v1.

[sttts]

@steveperry-53 compare my comment #4127 (comment). The point of the PR is to clarify exactly this. So the issue is still open and correct variants are proposed in the review comments. We are just waiting for the PR being updated.

[steveperry-53]

@madorn @stts @cheopis @ahmetb
Now that this PR has been reopened, let's move forward. @madorn Please make the suggested change.

I'm OK with this:
The core group, often referred to as the "legacy group", is at the REST path /api/v1 and uses apiVersion: v1.

[ahmetb]

I think the best course of action is to close this PR and open another.

[steveperry-53]

In the interest of moving this forward, I'm going to create a duplicate.
Duplicate of #6024.