Why is applying a full manifest “declarative” but applying a patch is “imperative”? That’s clearly an error.

Applying a full manifest is "this is your state now".

Applying a patch is "make these changes to your existing state".

That dependency on existing state is a difference, and it seems to map reasonably well to what declarative/imperative seem to usually be used to mean in this context.

1. A strategic merge patch says "this is your state now" (the only difference is the scope of the state in question, with a full manifest including a bunch of extraneous stuff)

2. "make these changes to your existing state" is still declarative

> Applying a full manifest is "this is your state now".

It isn’t though. It’s “please make the state look like this eventually”. You do not patch state, just spec. Controllers effect the changes.

You're both correct, but you're talking about different states. The parent's "state" is the state of the etcd database and your state is the actual state of the resources that the controllers are managing.

That said, the parent is wrong that a full manifest is declaring the (etcd) state in a way that a (strategic merge) patch isn't--both are declaring etcd state, but a strategic merge patch is doing so in finer-grained increments. A strategic merge patch can declare zero state or many full manifests, while applying full manifests can only work in increments of complete resource manifests. But both are telling Kubernetes "this is your (etcd) state now".

Then open a PR.

This is a strange way to concede an argument, but I’ll take it.