* `feature`: Features
    * New features, adding support for things that didn't exist before.
* `bug`: Fixes
    * Something that was supported didn't work, and this fixes it. There are many PRs that claim to be bug fixes because the user is doing something in an unexpected way that is not supported, but they considered it what should be supported by default. Many of these are actually features or refactors. But in some cases there's an actual bug.

      where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable
      by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their
      Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s)
      with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You
      institute patent litigation against any entity (including a
      cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work

  private class Itr implements Iterator<E> {
    /** Index of element to be returned by next, or a negative number if no such. */
    private int nextIndex;

    /**
     * nextItem holds on to item fields because once we claim that an element exists in hasNext(),
     * we must return it in the following next() call even if it was in the process of being removed
     * when hasNext() was called.
     */
    private @Nullable E nextItem;

Several times it has happened that there are PRs with 3, 5 or more approvals, probably because the description is appealing, but when I check the PRs, they are actually broken, have a bug, or don't solve the problem they claim to solve. 😅

So, it's really important that you actually read and run the code, and let me know in the comments that you did. 🤓

///

offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes...

  When configuring a JWT authenticator:
  
  If username.expression uses 'claims.email', then 'claims.email_verified' must be used in
  username.expression or extra[*].valueExpression or claimValidationRules[*].expression.
  An example claim validation rule expression that matches the validation automatically
  applied when username.claim is set to 'email' is 'claims.?email_verified.orValue(true) == true'. 

  private class Itr implements Iterator<E> {
    /** Index of element to be returned by next, or a negative number if no such. */
    private int nextIndex;

    /**
     * nextItem holds on to item fields because once we claim that an element exists in hasNext(),
     * we must return it in the following next() call even if it was in the process of being removed
     * when hasNext() was called.
     */
    private @Nullable E nextItem;

- DRA BindingConditions: when the DRABindingConditions feature was enabled, reusing the same claim among different pods may have caused a panic in the scheduler when deallocation happens in parallel (a rare race condition). ([#137371](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/137371), [@pohly](https://github.com/pohly)) [SIG Node, Scheduling...

- Promoted the `ServiceAccountTokenJTI` feature to GA, which adds a `jti` claim to issued service account tokens and embeds the `jti` claim as a `authentication.kubernetes.io/credential-id=["JTI=..."]` value in user extra info

### Bug or Regression

- BlockOwnerDeletion is removed from resource claims created from resource claim templates, and extended resource claims created by scheduler ([#134956](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/134956), [@yliaog](https://github.com/yliaog)) [SIG Apps, Node and Scheduling]