Merge pull request #4146 from nawazkh/fix_codespell_errors_release-1.10

[release-1.10] fix typos

azure/defaults.go

@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ const (
 
 const (
 	// DefaultWindowsOsAndVersion is the default Windows Server version to use when
-	// genearating default images for Windows nodes.
+	// generating default images for Windows nodes.
 	DefaultWindowsOsAndVersion = "windows-2019"
 )
 

docs/book/src/topics/addons.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Overview
 
-This section provides examples for addons for self-managed clusters. For manged cluster addons, please go to the [managed cluster specifications](https://capz.sigs.k8s.io/topics/managedcluster.html#specification).
+This section provides examples for addons for self-managed clusters. For managed cluster addons, please go to the [managed cluster specifications](https://capz.sigs.k8s.io/topics/managedcluster.html#specification).
 
 Self managed cluster addon options covered here:
 

docs/book/src/topics/externally-managed-azure-infrastructure.md

@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
 # Externally managed Azure infrastructure
 
-Normally, Cluster API will create infrastructure on Azure when standing up a new workload cluster. However, it is possible to have Cluster API re-use existing Azure infrastructure instead of creating its own infrastructure. 
+Normally, Cluster API will create infrastructure on Azure when standing up a new workload cluster. However, it is possible to have Cluster API reuse existing Azure infrastructure instead of creating its own infrastructure.
 
 CAPZ supports [externally managed cluster infrastructure](https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api/blob/10d89ceca938e4d3d94a1d1c2b60515bcdf39829/docs/proposals/20210203-externally-managed-cluster-infrastructure.md).
 If the `AzureCluster` resource includes a "cluster.x-k8s.io/managed-by" annotation then the [controller will skip any reconciliation](https://cluster-api.sigs.k8s.io/developer/providers/cluster-infrastructure.html#normal-resource).
 This is useful for scenarios where a different persona is managing the cluster infrastructure out-of-band while still wanting to use CAPI for automated machine management.
 
-You should only use this feature if your cluster infrastructure lifecycle management has constraints that the reference implementation does not support. See [user stories](https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api/blob/10d89ceca938e4d3d94a1d1c2b60515bcdf39829/docs/proposals/20210203-externally-managed-cluster-infrastructure.md#user-stories) for more details. 
+You should only use this feature if your cluster infrastructure lifecycle management has constraints that the reference implementation does not support. See [user stories](https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api/blob/10d89ceca938e4d3d94a1d1c2b60515bcdf39829/docs/proposals/20210203-externally-managed-cluster-infrastructure.md#user-stories) for more details. 

docs/proposals/20201214-bootstrap-failure-detection.md

@@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ A few conclusions surfaced when exploring these options:
 2. The actual implementation that determines “did I bootstrap successfully?” should be defined by each bootstrap provider, as each provider has its own files/operational conditions to validate. The validation on the Azure side should be as minimal as possible and delegate all responsibility of running checks to the bootstrap provider.
 3. We need to support Linux and Windows, and though there is one convenience (VM Boot Diagnostics) that may allow us to get a common result across both OSes “for free”, in practice there is enough heterogeneity at all layers (VM, OS, potentially even capi) that we should expect to have to maintain a discrete set of implementations for each platform. So we want to choose a solution that makes supporting both Linux and Windows distinctly natural.
 
-The most sensible solution would be to re-use the existing CustomScriptExtension interface that can be attached to both Windows and Linux VMs. But the fact that VMs may only support a single CustomScriptExtension is a non-trivial problem, as it removes that configuration vector for users. That vector can be a powerful configuration option — paired with custom OS images — to deliver regular runtime functionality to the underlying Azure VM running as a Kubernetes node. In particular during emergency scenarios being able to “patch” your node’s Azure VM implementation quickly using this interface can save a user many hours if he/she had to otherwise wait for a new OS image, or worse, a new VHD publication.
+The most sensible solution would be to reuse the existing CustomScriptExtension interface that can be attached to both Windows and Linux VMs. But the fact that VMs may only support a single CustomScriptExtension is a non-trivial problem, as it removes that configuration vector for users. That vector can be a powerful configuration option — paired with custom OS images — to deliver regular runtime functionality to the underlying Azure VM running as a Kubernetes node. In particular during emergency scenarios being able to “patch” your node’s Azure VM implementation quickly using this interface can save a user many hours if he/she had to otherwise wait for a new OS image, or worse, a new VHD publication.
 
 So, given that we don’t want to “reserve” the CustomScriptExtension VM interface for capz, thus preventing users from using it more generically and flexibly (as it’s intended to be used), we want to propose curating a capz-specific Azure VM Extension dedicated to running on the VM during provisioning and evaluating the success/fail state of its bootstrap operation(s) towards joining a capz-enabled Kubernetes cluster.
 

docs/proposals/20220825-azuremanaged-cluster-exp-graduation.md

@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ see-also:
 
 ## Summary
 
-`AzureManagedCluster` and its corresponding set of CRDs (we will refer to these CRDs as simply "`AzureManagedCluster`" in this document) is a CAPZ-native implementation of Azure Managed Kubernetes (AKS). Because there is no standard set of Cluster API resource definitions for a "Managed Kubernetes cluster", it is left up to the provider to re-use the existing Cluster API specification (for example, the `Cluster` and its to-be-implemented-by-provider properties such as `ControlPlaneEndpoint`, `ControlPlaneRef` and `InfrastructureRef`). As a result, CAPZ implemented "`AzureManagedCluster`" with an API contract designation of "experimental", to allow for rapid prototyping and discovery.
+`AzureManagedCluster` and its corresponding set of CRDs (we will refer to these CRDs as simply "`AzureManagedCluster`" in this document) is a CAPZ-native implementation of Azure Managed Kubernetes (AKS). Because there is no standard set of Cluster API resource definitions for a "Managed Kubernetes cluster", it is left up to the provider to reuse the existing Cluster API specification (for example, the `Cluster` and its to-be-implemented-by-provider properties such as `ControlPlaneEndpoint`, `ControlPlaneRef` and `InfrastructureRef`). As a result, CAPZ implemented "`AzureManagedCluster`" with an API contract designation of "experimental", to allow for rapid prototyping and discovery.
 
 With the recent adoption of "`AzureManagedCluster`" by the CAPZ community for practical, real-world use, we want to identify the set of outstanding items that may prevent graduation from experimental, and address each one of them, so that future adoption can be unlocked, and users can confidently build resilient systems on top of a stable API.
 
@@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ Ref:
 
 ### Dependency upon (currently experimental) MachinePool spec (Status: DONE, won't take dependency)
 
-At present we re-use the Cluster API `MachinePool` specification (as `AzureManagedMachinePool`) to implement AKS node pools running on Azure VMSS. A consideration here is that `MachinePool` is considered experimental, and behind a feature flag, by Cluster API. Do we want to add the graduation of `MachinePool` out of experimental as a prerequisite for graduating "`AzureManagedCluster`" out of experimental?
+At present we reuse the Cluster API `MachinePool` specification (as `AzureManagedMachinePool`) to implement AKS node pools running on Azure VMSS. A consideration here is that `MachinePool` is considered experimental, and behind a feature flag, by Cluster API. Do we want to add the graduation of `MachinePool` out of experimental as a prerequisite for graduating "`AzureManagedCluster`" out of experimental?
 
 We are tracking a concrete Cluster API implementation of `MachinePoolMachine` [here](https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api/pull/6089).