Change:
* The `kube-apiserver` instances these components communicate with are at **{{< skew currentVersion >}}** (in HA clusters in which these control plane components can communicate with any `kube-apiserver` instance in the cluster, all `kube-apiserver` instances must be upgraded before upgrading these components) <del> Upgrade `kube-controller-manager`, `kube-scheduler`, and `cloud-controller-manager` to **{{< skew currentVersion >}}** </del> <ins> Upgrade `kube-controller-manager`, `kube-scheduler`, and `cloud-controller-manager` to **{{< skew currentVersion >}}**. There is no required upgrade order between `kube-controller-manager`, `kube-scheduler`, and `cloud-controller-manager`. You can upgrade these components in any order, or even simultaneously. </ins> ### kubelet

Discussion:
Follow up from , tracked in Supported skew and upgrade order for kube-controller-manager/kube-scheduler is not clear in user-facing documentation: [ ] is a specific upgrade order between and required? Page to Update:
/wg lts
The scheduler is a controller. There should not be an ordering requirement; it's easy to imagine ways of getting an ordering requirement, but I consider them all to be bugs (e.g., scheduler depends on semantics of a particular controller at the same version).
/language en
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh with . Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close. If this issue is safe to close now please do so with . Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or . /lifecycle stale
/priority backlog Is that OK?
Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh with . Rotten issues close after an additional 30d of inactivity. If this issue is safe to close now please do so with . Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or . /lifecycle rotten
/remove-lifecycle rotten
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh with . Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close. If this issue is safe to close now please do so with . Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or . /lifecycle stale
Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh with . Rotten issues close after an additional 30d of inactivity. If this issue is safe to close now please do so with . Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or . /lifecycle rotten
Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity. Reopen the issue with . Mark the issue as fresh with . Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or . /close
Closing this issue. <detailsIn response to : Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity. Reopen the issue with . Mark the issue as fresh with . /close Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available .

If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
/reopen /remove-lifecycle rotten /lifecycle frozen
Reopened this issue. <detailsIn response to : /reopen /remove-lifecycle rotten /lifecycle frozen Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available . If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the repository. </details
/triage accepted
Reached out in #sig-scheduling chat to potentially get some movement on this and determine what update is needed (either clarify that upgrade order of and doesn't matter, or clarify what the order should be) /assign
Answer: there must not be a specific ordering needed between those two components. In practice, they get locks independently and the most common way of upgrading them (a VM at a time) means all four combinations of versions are possible, and a single upgrade could even see splits both ways.
Thanks