-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
📖CAEP proposal v2: expectations and timelines #1501
📖CAEP proposal v2: expectations and timelines #1501
Conversation
/assign @timothysc @ncdc @detiber |
/assign @justinsb @justaugustus as well, for more feedback |
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.
Seems reasonable, thanks!
8cedeee
to
684b938
Compare
Once we reach consensus if this gets merged, I'll make sure to reach out to folks writing proposals and CC them here |
1. **Create a PR.** | ||
1. **Merge early.** |
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 necessarily like the idea of removing the Merge early
concept, otherwise we are likely to get hung up on bikeshedding before getting proposals in.
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.
In the timeline below, I expressed that proposals ideas should be communicated in an issue or community meeting for initial feedback. Originally, the merge early was to get just motivation and goals in place, which so far hasn't been enough to get consensus.
docs/proposals/YYYYMMDD-template.md
Outdated
This is where we get down to the nitty gritty of what the proposal actually is. | ||
|
||
### User Stories [optional] | ||
- What is the plan for implementing this feature? | ||
- What data model changes, additions or removals are required? |
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.
Shouldn't data model changes be listed under implementation details?
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 looked at the bootstrap proposal, and those are part of the Proposal
- What data model changes, additions or removals are required? | ||
- How does it impact user experience? | ||
- Provide a scenario, or example. | ||
- Use diagrams to communicate concepts, flows of execution, and states. |
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 seems more in line with implementation details than the high level proposal description.
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.
Same as above
docs/proposals/YYYYMMDD-template.md
Outdated
[conformance tests]: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/conformance-tests.md | ||
|
||
### Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy | ||
### Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy [optional] |
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 should likely keep this as required going forward.
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.
Let's do this in another PR? I would like to think together through the items listed under there and make it more explicit what we'd expect users to write up here
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.
Perhaps just add upgrade strategy. Downgrade is fraught with peril.
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, anything else we should add to the notes?
684b938
to
2f1051f
Compare
Signed-off-by: Vince Prignano <vincepri@vmware.com>
2f1051f
to
986adb4
Compare
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.
/lgtm
/approve
PSA @fabriziopandini - FYI on slight format update.
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: timothysc, vincepri The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
/cc @detiber @chuckha @amy @noamran @michaelgugino @juan-lee @CecileRobertMichon @justaugustus @randomvariable @rudoi @dennisme @liztio @frapposelli for updating the in-flight proposals with the new format and expectations |
@vincepri: GitHub didn't allow me to request PR reviews from the following users: dennisme, noamran. Note that only kubernetes-sigs members and repo collaborators can review this PR, and authors cannot review their own PRs. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
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.
/lgtm
Signed-off-by: Vince Prignano vincepri@vmware.com
What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR iterates on the CAEP template making it more aligned with the expectations we (as a community) would like to have a fully fleshed out proposal before it becomes a PR to this repository.
In more details, this PR:
Glossary
section with a link to the Cluster API book glossary.Non-Goals/Future Work
, to be clear none of the points are blocking other folks' work.Proposal
section, such as details about the design, implementation, and having diagrams to refer to.Implementation Details
section required.Upgrade Strategy
section to be required and top level.Implementation History
.