Proposal: separate yurt-manager clients

[luc99hen]

What type of PR is this?

/kind documentation

What this PR does / why we need it:

Propose a plan for separating yurt-manager clients.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

other Note

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 55.61%. Comparing base (2154da8) to head (de14443).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2051      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   55.62%   55.61%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         186      186              
  Lines       18072    18079       +7     
==========================================
+ Hits        10052    10055       +3     
- Misses       6995     7001       +6     
+ Partials     1025     1023       -2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	55.61% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[rambohe-ch]

@luc99hen Thank you for raising proposal to improve rbac management of yurt-manager component. and this proposal will reduce the security risk of OpenYurt cluster. moreover, it is easy for users to track the source controller that apply request to kube-apiserver.

I am looking forward to your code pull request.

[rambohe-ch]

@luc99hen At the same time, I think you can make a share presentation on the community meeting this week.

[sonarcloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
No data about Duplication

See analysis details on SonarCloud