-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 484
New issue
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # to your account
Add initial enhancement templates #2
Conversation
|
||
## Is My Thing an Enhancement? | ||
|
||
A rough heuristic for an enhancement is anything that: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that anything with upgrade/downgrade impacts deserves an enhancement.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
sgtm, will update.
README.md
Outdated
If you are not sure if the proposed work requires an enhancement, file an issue | ||
and ask! | ||
|
||
## When to Create a New Enhancement Issue |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
issue or PR?
README.md
Outdated
Create an issue here once you: | ||
|
||
- have circulated your idea to see if there is interest | ||
- through Community Meetings, SIG meetings, or mailing lists |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
we don't have community meetings or sig meetings.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
some groups do, but I am going to omit this for the moment, and we can have a place on how to reach out across mailing lists, slack, etc.
README.md
Outdated
- have circulated your idea to see if there is interest | ||
- through Community Meetings, SIG meetings, or mailing lists | ||
- (optionally) have done a prototype in your own fork | ||
- have identified people who agree to work on the enhancement |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
work on and maintain
enhancements/README.md
Outdated
|
||
## Quick start | ||
|
||
1. Socialize an idea with others. Make sure others thing the work is worth |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
s/thing/think
enhancements/README.md
Outdated
|
||
### Do I put de# a particular directory? | ||
|
||
If it has broad impact, place it in the root of this directory. If its |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
it's
- "/enhancements/our-past-effort.md" | ||
--- | ||
|
||
# Title |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this one can be title cased, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i don't understand this comment.
@@ -0,0 +1,223 @@ | |||
--- | |||
title: Enhancement Template |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
and this is the dash delimited one.
logical description for the deployment, and how it handles the unique aspects | ||
of the platform. Aim for single topic PRs to keep discussions focused. If you | ||
disagree with what is already in a document, open a new PR with suggested | ||
changes. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Only merge pieces of the doc that we agree with. Not attempts that you do not agree with. Otherwise these get really confusing to read.
|
||
### Version Skew Strategy | ||
|
||
If applicable, how will the component handle version skew with other components? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We will always have skew. During an upgrade, two versions will be present with no guaranteed order.
Want to submit an enhancement in the next sprint or 2. Just checking to see when this will be finalized and merged. |
You can submit an enhancement at any time. I would like to merge and iterate on this. |
3c3c0b1
to
881dbb7
Compare
@deads2k i made majority of updates noted, would like to merge and iterate on this after. |
Update Proposal Method 2 for Day1 kargs
The broken link is from 881dbb7 (Add initial enhancement templates, 2019-08-23, openshift#2), with a sloppy copy from [1]. I'm fixing with a verbatim copy from the KEP template (and dropping template-only stuff from the user-workload-monitoring enhancement). This is a bit of a semantic change from what we had previously. The OpenShift vs. Kubernetes maturity levels are not clear to me. OpenShift does have docs on GA and later [2], and we do have docs on using Technology Preview features [3], but I have not turned up docs for what Technology preview means in terms of maturity/support. But even if there is a Kubernetes / OpenShift maturity distinction, OpenShift is going to expose Kubernetes features before they go stable. And we use v1beta1 and whatnot for OpenShift configs. So I don't think we can drop the Kubernetes maturity references altogether, although we can add OpenShift maturity references in addition (once we find out what to reference). [1]: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blame/f1a799d5f4658ed29797c1fb9ceb7a4d0f538e93/keps/YYYYMMDD-kep-template.md#L216-L221 [2]: https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/openshift/ [3]: https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/4.2/nodes/clusters/nodes-cluster-enabling-features.html#nodes-cluster-features-about_nodes-cluster-enabling
#### Examples | ||
|
||
These are generalized examples to consider, in addition to the aforementioned | ||
[maturity levels][maturity-levels]. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've taken a stab at fixing this broken link in #114.
The bracketed openshift/docs is from 881dbb7 (Add initial enhancement templates, 2019-08-23, openshift#2). But a link makes it easy for folks to see where changes should go, and is something that can be updated by enhancements to link specific PRs as they check off this box.
OLM approach proposal
The broken link is from 881dbb7 (Add initial enhancement templates, 2019-08-23, openshift#2), with a sloppy copy from [1]. I'm fixing with a verbatim copy from the KEP template (and dropping template-only stuff from the user-workload-monitoring enhancement). This is a bit of a semantic change from what we had previously. The OpenShift vs. Kubernetes maturity levels are not clear to me. OpenShift does have docs on GA and later [2], and we do have docs on using Technology Preview features [3], but I have not turned up docs for what Technology preview means in terms of maturity/support. But even if there is a Kubernetes / OpenShift maturity distinction, OpenShift is going to expose Kubernetes features before they go stable. And we use v1beta1 and whatnot for OpenShift configs. So I don't think we can drop the Kubernetes maturity references altogether, although we can add OpenShift maturity references in addition (once we find out what to reference). I also went through existing enhancements and removed useless copies of the template boilerplate, to make it more clear that those particular enhancements did not have anything to say about graduation criteria. [1]: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blame/f1a799d5f4658ed29797c1fb9ceb7a4d0f538e93/keps/YYYYMMDD-kep-template.md#L216-L221 [2]: https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/openshift/ [3]: https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/4.2/nodes/clusters/nodes-cluster-enabling-features.html#nodes-cluster-features-about_nodes-cluster-enabling
The broken link is from 881dbb7 (Add initial enhancement templates, 2019-08-23, openshift#2), with a sloppy copy from [1]. I'm fixing with a verbatim copy from the KEP template (and dropping template-only stuff from the user-workload-monitoring enhancement). This is a bit of a semantic change from what we had previously. The OpenShift vs. Kubernetes maturity levels are not clear to me. OpenShift does have docs on GA and later [2], and we do have docs on using Technology Preview features [3], but I have not turned up docs for what Technology preview means in terms of maturity/support. But even if there is a Kubernetes / OpenShift maturity distinction, OpenShift is going to expose Kubernetes features before they go stable. And we use v1beta1 and whatnot for OpenShift configs. So I don't think we can drop the Kubernetes maturity references altogether, although we can add OpenShift maturity references in addition (once we find out what to reference). I also went through existing enhancements and removed useless copies of the template boilerplate, to make it more clear that those particular enhancements did not have anything to say about graduation criteria. [1]: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blame/f1a799d5f4658ed29797c1fb9ceb7a4d0f538e93/keps/YYYYMMDD-kep-template.md#L216-L221 [2]: https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/openshift/ [3]: https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/4.2/nodes/clusters/nodes-cluster-enabling-features.html#nodes-cluster-features-about_nodes-cluster-enabling
Fedosin's changes 2
Single node should run OLM and MCO
Refocus on ovn-k/cno work only
…lel-meta.md cosa/20200805-meta-merge: design for merged meta.json
Enhancement proposal for the API evolution of APIExport in relation t…
Address review comments
OCPEDGE-1344: Updated details of installation and unanswered questions.
Add initial enhancement template and repo content.