@istio/wg-docs-maintainers This PR refers to an Istio limitation that is not documented in https://istio.io/latest/docs/ops/deployment/requirements/ . Would it make sense to work with someone in @istio/wg-networking-maintainers to add a sentence/paragraph about that requirement? (Not to this PR, in a new Issue/PR about a undocumented limitation.)

@istio/wg-docs-maintainers I didn't get a notice this PR was created. Would it make sense to have the content/en/docs/reference/config/analysis/... folder require a sign-off from @istio/wg-user-experience-maintainers ?

@istio/wg-docs-maintainers I didn't get a notice this PR was created. Would it make sense to have the content/en/docs/reference/config/analysis/... folder require a sign-off from @istio/wg-user-experience-maintainers ?

We've had an informal process, for a while now, of always requesting approval from someone in the document owner WG for any PR that is adding a new doc or making non-trivial changes. We might want to consider making this a more formal process in the future.

@kebe7jun: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests:

@frankbu @kebe7jun

The only problem with this PR and maybe we need to doc it better, is data/analysis.yml file isn't updated in this repo, but copied from https://github.com/istio/istio/blob/master/galley/pkg/config/analysis/msg/messages.yaml (at the appropriate branch (release-1.9 for now)). The update reference automated job is now failing as it's trying to copy from the istio/istio file.

We should put this update in the upstream file along with a message in it to it's original location and not to update it in similar to what we have in some of the other files that are copied.

It looks like the change was actually made in istio/istio#30049, put that PR wasn't cherry-picked to the release-1.9 branch. @kebe7jun should this code be in release-1.9? If so, we should cherry-pick that PR forward which will actually update the data/analysis file. If not, then this is a istio/istio master branch item and should not be in istio.io yet (it's only to contain 1.9 items at this point).

@frankbu @kebe7jun

The only problem with this PR and maybe we need to doc it better, is data/analysis.yml file isn't updated in this repo, but copied from https://github.com/istio/istio/blob/master/galley/pkg/config/analysis/msg/messages.yaml (at the appropriate branch (release-1.9 for now)). The update reference automated job is now failing as it's trying to copy from the istio/istio file.

We should put this update in the upstream file along with a message in it to it's original location and not to update it in similar to what we have in some of the other files that are copied.

Sorry about that, so, what can I do to resolve this problem? revert this pr or remove the content copied from data/analysis.yml by a new pr?

@kebe7jun I guess one needs to figure out if istio/istio#30049 should be cherry-picked to 1.9 (discussion in that PR as well). If it can be cherry-picked, then things should eventually work out. If it's not going to be cherry-picked than this PR should be reverted as the analysis for 137 isn't in release-1.9 so shouldn't be doc'd here.

@ericvn What do you think, @kebe7jun ? Usually I do not push hard to get analyzers to cherry-pick, as they are not functional and users can download a daily build of istioctl. If there is 0% chance of the new analyzer incorrectly offering false positive warnings we can cherry pick it.

@ericvn Oh sorry, follow @esnible , I think we should revert this pr until 1.9 is released.