Automatic merge from submit-queue

fix typo on federation/pkg/dnsprovider/plugins.go

**What this PR does / why we need it**: Increase code readability

**Which issue this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close that issue when PR gets merged)*: fixes #

**Special notes for your reviewer**: just fix one minor mistake as first contribution

**Release note**:

```release-note
```

Automatic merge from submit-queue

create kuberentes-discovery image

Creates an image for `kubernetes-discovery` since this is the API registration, aggregation, and proxy image.

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Reduce timeout for waiting for resource version

Ref #37473

Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 37477, 39010)

Added extra logging in validate cluster.

Merge pull request #37477 from bruceauyeung/k8s-branch-fix-metrics-monitor-always-get-zero-value-http-code-in-ServeHTTP

Automatic merge from submit-queue

fix incorrect parameter pass to metrics.Monitor method call in ServeHTTP

**What this PR does / why we need it**:

before this PR:
1. `httpCode` is evaluated when defer statement executes, so all later assignments to `httpCode` is actually ineffectual. this obviously is not the design purpose.
2. `w.Header().Get("Content-Type")` is  evaluated when defer statement executes, so all later `w.Header().Set("Content-Type",xxx)` ( in `writeNegotiated` ) is ineffectual to `metrics.Monitor`, i think this also is not the design purpose.

after this PR:
1. `httpCode` and `w.Header().Get("Content-Type")` is evaluated when the defered anonymous function executes, so `metrics.Monitor` will get correct `httpCode` and `Content-Type` field value.
2. in `ServeHTTP` method there is not any modification to `req` parameter, so it's safe to defer its evaluation.
Signed-off-by: bruceauyeung <ouyang.qinhua@zte.com.cn>

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Coreos kube-up now with less cloud init

This update includes significant refactoring. It moves almost all of the
logic into bash scripts, modeled after the `gci` cluster scripts.

The reason to do this is:
1. Avoid duplicating the saltbase manifests by reusing gci's parsing logic (easier maintenance)
2. Take an incremental step towards sharing more code between gci/trusty/coreos, again for better maintenance
3. Pave the way for making future changes (e.g. improved rkt support, kubelet support) easier to share

The primary differences from the gci scripts are the following:
1. Use of the `/opt/kubernetes` directory over `/home/kubernetes`
2. Support for rkt as a runtime
3. No use of logrotate
4. No use of `/etc/default/`
5. No logic related to noexec mounts or gci-specific firewall-stuff

It will make sense to move 2 over to gci, as well as perhaps a few other small improvements. That will be a separate PR for ease of review.

Ref #29720, this is a part of that because it removes a copy of them.

Fixes #24165

cc @yifan-gu 

Since this logic largely duplicates logic from the gci folder, it would be nice if someone closely familiar with that gave an OK or made sure I didn't fall into any gotchas related to that, so cc @andyzheng0831

Added extra logging in validate cluster to help debug HA e2e tests.

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Moved kubemark master from Debian to GCI

This PR fixes issue #37484
Kubemark master now runs on GCI instead of Debian, taking it one step closer to a real cluster master.
Primary changes:
1. changing master VM image/OS in kubemark's config-default.sh to debian
2. moving kubelet to systemd from supervisord
3. changing directory for cert/key/csv files from /srv/kubernetes to /etc/srv/kubernetes

cc @kubernetes/sig-scalability-misc  @wojtek-t @gmarek

Automatic merge from submit-queue

fix typo
Signed-off-by: yupeng <yu.peng36@zte.com.cn>



**What this PR does / why we need it**:

**Which issue this PR fixes** *(optional, in `fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)` format, will close that issue when PR gets merged)*: fixes #

**Special notes for your reviewer**:

**Release note**:

```release-note
```

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Add test to detach a pd whose node was deleted

**What this PR does / why we need it**:
A test for the following issue :
If a node with a GCE PD attached is deleted (before the volume is detached), subsequent attempts by the attach/detach controller to detach it should not fail.


**Bonus** :Added additional code to ensure that the pd can still be attached to a different node.
Edit : Removed it as it was making the test much slower.

https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/29358

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Unmount operation should not fail if volume is already unmounted

**What this PR does / why we need it**:
If the volume is already unmounted from the pod, another unmount operation should not fail.

fixes:  https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/37657

Signed-off-by: yupeng <yu.peng36@zte.com.cn>

Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38426, 38917, 38891, 38935)

Remove cluster/mesos from hack/verify-flags/exceptions.txt

`cluster/mesos` scripts was removed; so remove it from `hack/verify-flags/exceptions.txt`.

The diff was generated by `hack/verify-flags-underscore.py -e > hack/verify-flags/exceptions.txt`.

Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38426, 38917, 38891, 38935)

Support different image during GCE node upgrade

**What this PR does / why we need it**: It lets GCE upgrade tests upgrade to a GCI node image.

**Which issue this PR fixes**: fixes #37855

Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 38426, 38917, 38891, 38935)

if statement must be true

**What this PR does / why we need it**:

if len(metrics.Items)==0, the function would been returned. so the statement if len(metrics.Items) > 0 is redudant, it must be true.

**Special notes for your reviewer**:

**Release note**:

```release-note
```

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Changed default scsi controller type in vSphere Cloud Provider

This PR changes default scsi controller to ```pvscsi``` in vSphere Cloud Provider. Fixes #37527

Signed-off-by: bruceauyeung <ouyang.qinhua@zte.com.cn>

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Curating Owners: pkg/apiserver

cc @lavalamp @smarterclayton @nikhiljindal

In an effort to expand the existing pool of reviewers and establish a
two-tiered review process (first someone lgtms and then someone
experienced in the project approves), we are adding new reviewers to
existing owners files.


If You Care About the Process:
------------------------------

We did this by algorithmically figuring out who’s contributed code to
the project and in what directories.  Unfortunately, that doesn’t work
well: people that have made mechanical code changes (e.g change the
copyright header across all directories) end up as reviewers in lots of
places.

Instead of using pure commit data, we generated an excessively large
list of reviewers and pruned based on all time commit data, recent
commit data and review data (number of PRs commented on).

At this point we have a decent list of reviewers, but it needs one last
pass for fine tuning.

Also, see https://github.com/kubernetes/contrib/issues/1389.

TLDR:
-----

As an owner of a sig/directory and a leader of the project, here’s what
we need from you:

1. Use PR https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/35715 as an example.

2. The pull-request is made editable, please edit the `OWNERS` file to
remove the names of people that shouldn't be reviewing code in the
future in the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify
the **approvers** section. Names asre sorted by relevance, using some
secret statistics.

3. Notify me if you want some OWNERS file to be removed.  Being an
approver or reviewer of a parent directory makes you a reviewer/approver
of the subdirectories too, so not all OWNERS files may be necessary.

4. Please use ALIAS if you want to use the same list of people over and
over again (don't hesitate to ask me for help, or use the pull-request
above as an example)

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Curating Owners: pkg/registry

cc @lavalamp @smarterclayton @wojtek-t

In an effort to expand the existing pool of reviewers and establish a
two-tiered review process (first someone lgtms and then someone
experienced in the project approves), we are adding new reviewers to
existing owners files.


If You Care About the Process:
------------------------------

We did this by algorithmically figuring out who’s contributed code to
the project and in what directories.  Unfortunately, that doesn’t work
well: people that have made mechanical code changes (e.g change the
copyright header across all directories) end up as reviewers in lots of
places.

Instead of using pure commit data, we generated an excessively large
list of reviewers and pruned based on all time commit data, recent
commit data and review data (number of PRs commented on).

At this point we have a decent list of reviewers, but it needs one last
pass for fine tuning.

Also, see https://github.com/kubernetes/contrib/issues/1389.

TLDR:
-----

As an owner of a sig/directory and a leader of the project, here’s what
we need from you:

1. Use PR https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/35715 as an example.

2. The pull-request is made editable, please edit the `OWNERS` file to
remove the names of people that shouldn't be reviewing code in the
future in the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify
the **approvers** section. Names asre sorted by relevance, using some
secret statistics.

3. Notify me if you want some OWNERS file to be removed.  Being an
approver or reviewer of a parent directory makes you a reviewer/approver
of the subdirectories too, so not all OWNERS files may be necessary.

4. Please use ALIAS if you want to use the same list of people over and
over again (don't hesitate to ask me for help, or use the pull-request
above as an example)

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Curating Owners: pkg/client

cc @lavalamp @caesarxuchao @mikedanese @timothysc @smarterclayton @krousey @deads2k

In an effort to expand the existing pool of reviewers and establish a
two-tiered review process (first someone lgtms and then someone
experienced in the project approves), we are adding new reviewers to
existing owners files.


If You Care About the Process:
------------------------------

We did this by algorithmically figuring out who’s contributed code to
the project and in what directories.  Unfortunately, that doesn’t work
well: people that have made mechanical code changes (e.g change the
copyright header across all directories) end up as reviewers in lots of
places.

Instead of using pure commit data, we generated an excessively large
list of reviewers and pruned based on all time commit data, recent
commit data and review data (number of PRs commented on).

At this point we have a decent list of reviewers, but it needs one last
pass for fine tuning.

Also, see https://github.com/kubernetes/contrib/issues/1389.

TLDR:
-----

As an owner of a sig/directory and a leader of the project, here’s what
we need from you:

1. Use PR https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/35715 as an example.

2. The pull-request is made editable, please edit the `OWNERS` file to
remove the names of people that shouldn't be reviewing code in the
future in the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify
the **approvers** section. Names asre sorted by relevance, using some
secret statistics.

3. Notify me if you want some OWNERS file to be removed.  Being an
approver or reviewer of a parent directory makes you a reviewer/approver
of the subdirectories too, so not all OWNERS files may be necessary.

4. Please use ALIAS if you want to use the same list of people over and
over again (don't hesitate to ask me for help, or use the pull-request
above as an example)

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Curating Owners: hack/jenkins

cc @rmmh @spxtr @ixdy @fejta

In an effort to expand the existing pool of reviewers and establish a
two-tiered review process (first someone lgtms and then someone
experienced in the project approves), we are adding new reviewers to
existing owners files.


If You Care About the Process:
------------------------------

We did this by algorithmically figuring out who’s contributed code to
the project and in what directories.  Unfortunately, that doesn’t work
well: people that have made mechanical code changes (e.g change the
copyright header across all directories) end up as reviewers in lots of
places.

Instead of using pure commit data, we generated an excessively large
list of reviewers and pruned based on all time commit data, recent
commit data and review data (number of PRs commented on).

At this point we have a decent list of reviewers, but it needs one last
pass for fine tuning.

Also, see https://github.com/kubernetes/contrib/issues/1389.

TLDR:
-----

As an owner of a sig/directory and a leader of the project, here’s what
we need from you:

1. Use PR https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/35715 as an example.

2. The pull-request is made editable, please edit the `OWNERS` file to
remove the names of people that shouldn't be reviewing code in the
future in the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify
the **approvers** section. Names asre sorted by relevance, using some
secret statistics.

3. Notify me if you want some OWNERS file to be removed.  Being an
approver or reviewer of a parent directory makes you a reviewer/approver
of the subdirectories too, so not all OWNERS files may be necessary.

4. Please use ALIAS if you want to use the same list of people over and
over again (don't hesitate to ask me for help, or use the pull-request
above as an example)

Automatic merge from submit-queue

pkg/apiserver: split up monolithic package

**Based on** https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/38191

This is a first step to integrate pkg/apiserver with pkg/genericapiserver into a common package structure. For this
- pkg/apiserver is cleaned up from code which does not belong there, 
- split up into pkg/apiserver, pkg/apiserver/handlers{,/negotation,/helpers,/errors}

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Reduce decode times by changing the kubectl.Filter(runtime.Object, *PrintOptions)'s return values

**What this PR does / why we need it**:
In kubectl/cmd/get.go, we use the function filterFuncs.Filter() to decode data and filter the object. But in the following function printer.PrintObj() decodes the data again.
I made these modifications to reduce the decoding times by changing the filterFuncs.Filter()'s returned values. We can get the decoded object from this function and pass it to the following printer.PrintObj(), so not to waste time to decode again.

Remove people probably not interested in this code

Automatic merge from submit-queue

Curating Owners: cluster/juju

cc @castrojo @mbruzek @chuckbutler @marcoceppi

In an effort to expand the existing pool of reviewers and establish a
two-tiered review process (first someone lgtms and then someone
experienced in the project approves), we are adding new reviewers to
existing owners files.


If You Care About the Process:
------------------------------

We did this by algorithmically figuring out who’s contributed code to
the project and in what directories.  Unfortunately, that doesn’t work
well: people that have made mechanical code changes (e.g change the
copyright header across all directories) end up as reviewers in lots of
places.

Instead of using pure commit data, we generated an excessively large
list of reviewers and pruned based on all time commit data, recent
commit data and review data (number of PRs commented on).

At this point we have a decent list of reviewers, but it needs one last
pass for fine tuning.

Also, see https://github.com/kubernetes/contrib/issues/1389.

TLDR:
-----

As an owner of a sig/directory and a leader of the project, here’s what
we need from you:

1. Use PR https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/35715 as an example.

2. The pull-request is made editable, please edit the `OWNERS` file to
remove the names of people that shouldn't be reviewing code in the
future in the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify
the **approvers** section. Names asre sorted by relevance, using some
secret statistics.

3. Notify me if you want some OWNERS file to be removed.  Being an
approver or reviewer of a parent directory makes you a reviewer/approver
of the subdirectories too, so not all OWNERS files may be necessary.

4. Please use ALIAS if you want to use the same list of people over and
over again (don't hesitate to ask me for help, or use the pull-request
above as an example)

- move rest handler into handlers package
- move errors into handlers/errors package
- move negotation code into handlers/negotation package
- move http response writer helpers into handlers/responsewriter package
- split up pkg/apiserver/apiserver.go

Note: this is only an intermediate step towards a proper genericapiserver
package hierarchy.