From 72d5e1ed5e40af7e3d03ef3f5ef3b01e18b148fc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michal Szadkowski <michal_szadkowski@epam.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 12:09:30 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] remove comments

---
 .../README.md                                 | 153 +-----------------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 152 deletions(-)

diff --git a/keps/2349-multikueue-external-custom-job-support/README.md b/keps/2349-multikueue-external-custom-job-support/README.md
index c0d3660e19..d78f75e72c 100644
--- a/keps/2349-multikueue-external-custom-job-support/README.md
+++ b/keps/2349-multikueue-external-custom-job-support/README.md
@@ -41,91 +41,31 @@ tags, and then generate with `hack/update-toc.sh`.
 
 This KEP introduces the ability to create Multikueue Admission Check controllers with custom set of adapters.
 
-<!--
-This section is incredibly important for producing high-quality, user-focused
-documentation such as release notes or a development roadmap. It should be
-possible to collect this information before implementation begins, in order to
-avoid requiring implementors to split their attention between writing release
-notes and implementing the feature itself. KEP editors and SIG Docs
-should help to ensure that the tone and content of the `Summary` section is
-useful for a wide audience.
-
-A good summary is probably at least a paragraph in length.
-
-Both in this section and below, follow the guidelines of the [documentation
-style guide]. In particular, wrap lines to a reasonable length, to make it
-easier for reviewers to cite specific portions, and to minimize diff churn on
-updates.
-
-[documentation style guide]: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/guide/style-guide.md
--->
-
 ## Motivation
 
 Many Kueue adaptors have company specific CustomResources.
 Kueue should give a possibility to manage such CustomResources across multiple clusters.
 
-<!--
-This section is for explicitly listing the motivation, goals, and non-goals of
-this KEP.  Describe why the change is important and the benefits to users. The
-motivation section can optionally provide links to [experience reports] to
-demonstrate the interest in a KEP within the wider Kubernetes community.
-
-[experience reports]: https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/ExperienceReports
--->
-
 ### Goals
 
 Give a possibility for external controllers to manage private CustomResources in a MultiKueue environment.
 
-<!--
-List the specific goals of the KEP. What is it trying to achieve? How will we
-know that this has succeeded?
--->
-
 ### Non-Goals
 
-<!--
-What is out of scope for this KEP? Listing non-goals helps to focus discussion
-and make progress.
--->
-
 ## Proposal
 
-<!--
-This is where we get down to the specifics of what the proposal actually is.
-This should have enough detail that reviewers can understand exactly what
-you're proposing, but should not include things like API designs or
-implementation. What is the desired outcome and how do we measure success?.
-The "Design Details" section below is for the real
-nitty-gritty.
--->
-
 Make multiple instances of Multikueue admission check controller able to run simultaneously with different set of Multkiueue adapters in one cluster at the same time.
 Provide a custom admission check controller name and adapters for Multikueue.
 Specified controller is used by workload, cluster and admission check MultiKueue reconcilers.
 
 ### User Stories
 
-<!--
-Detail the things that people will be able to do if this KEP is implemented.
-Include as much detail as possible so that people can understand the "how" of
-the system. The goal here is to make this feel real for users without getting
-bogged down.
--->
-
 #### Story 1
 
 I would like to support the extension mechanism so that we can implement the MultiKueue controller for the custom / in-house Jobs.
 
 ### Constraints
 
-<!--
-What are the caveats to the proposal?
-What are some important details that didn't come across above?
-Go in to as much detail as necessary here.
-This might be a good place to talk about core concepts and how they relate.
--->
 Internally the MultiKueue uses a set of controller-runtime client, one for each MultiKueueCluster, the clients are used both by the MultiKueue internals and passed to the job adapters for the custom jobs synchronization.
 
 The clients cannot be share with an external controller and assuming the external controller can get the same connectivity to the worker clusters might be wrong, especially when we are taking about FS mounted kubeconfigs.
@@ -134,18 +74,6 @@ Designing additional APIs to communicate between the internal and external contr
 
 ### Risks and Mitigations
 
-<!--
-What are the risks of this proposal, and how do we mitigate? Think broadly.
-For example, consider both security and how this will impact the larger
-Kubernetes ecosystem.
-
-How will security be reviewed, and by whom?
-
-How will UX be reviewed, and by whom?
-
-Consider including folks who also work outside the SIG or subproject.
--->
-
 ## Design Details
 
 Provide a way to integrate external controllers to manage Jobs in the Kueue.
@@ -212,69 +140,23 @@ func WithAdapter(adapter jobframework.MultiKueueAdapter) SetupOption {
 }
 ```
 
-<!--
-This section should contain enough information that the specifics of your
-change are understandable. This may include API specs (though not always
-required) or even code snippets. If there's any ambiguity about HOW your
-proposal will be implemented, this is the place to discuss them.
--->
-
 ### Test Plan
 
-<!--
-**Note:** *Not required until targeted at a release.*
-The goal is to ensure that we don't accept enhancements with inadequate testing.
-
-All code is expected to have adequate tests (eventually with coverage
-expectations). Please adhere to the [Kubernetes testing guidelines][testing-guidelines]
-when drafting this test plan.
-
-[testing-guidelines]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-testing/testing.md
--->
-
 [x] I/we understand the owners of the involved components may require updates to
 existing tests to make this code solid enough prior to committing the changes necessary
 to implement this enhancement.
 
 ##### Prerequisite testing updates
 
-<!--
-Based on reviewers feedback describe what additional tests need to be added prior
-implementing this enhancement to ensure the enhancements have also solid foundations.
--->
-
 #### Unit Tests
 
-<!--
-In principle every added code should have complete unit test coverage, so providing
-the exact set of tests will not bring additional value.
-However, if complete unit test coverage is not possible, explain the reason of it
-together with explanation why this is acceptable.
--->
-
 Target is to keep same level or increase the coverage for all of the modified packages.
 Cover the critical part of newly created code.
 
-<!--
-Additionally, try to enumerate the core package you will be touching
-to implement this enhancement and provide the current unit coverage for those
-in the form of:
-- <package>: <date> - <current test coverage>
-
-This can inform certain test coverage improvements that we want to do before
-extending the production code to implement this enhancement.
--->
-
 - `<package>`: `<date>` - `<test coverage>`
 
 #### Integration tests
 
-<!--
-Describe what tests will be added to ensure proper quality of the enhancement.
-
-After the implementation PR is merged, add the names of the tests here.
--->
-
 We are going to cover the following scenario:
 
 Setup 2 distinct MultiKueue Admission Checks over the same multicluster.
@@ -283,51 +165,18 @@ Prove that 2 different MultiKueue controllers can manage different job types run
 
 ### Graduation Criteria
 
-<!--
-
-Clearly define what it means for the feature to be implemented and
-considered stable.
-
-If the feature you are introducing has high complexity, consider adding graduation
-milestones with these graduation criteria:
-- [Maturity levels (`alpha`, `beta`, `stable`)][maturity-levels]
-- [Feature gate][feature gate] lifecycle
-- [Deprecation policy][deprecation-policy]
-
-[feature gate]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/feature-gates.md
-[maturity-levels]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/api_changes.md#alpha-beta-and-stable-versions
-[deprecation-policy]: https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/using-api/deprecation-policy/
--->
 
 ## Implementation History
 
 * 2024-06-20 First draft
-<!--
-Major milestones in the lifecycle of a KEP should be tracked in this section.
-Major milestones might include:
-- the `Summary` and `Motivation` sections being merged, signaling SIG acceptance
-- the `Proposal` section being merged, signaling agreement on a proposed design
-- the date implementation started
-- the first Kubernetes release where an initial version of the KEP was available
-- the version of Kubernetes where the KEP graduated to general availability
-- when the KEP was retired or superseded
--->
+
 
 ## Drawbacks
 
-<!--
-Why should this KEP _not_ be implemented?
--->
 The proposed solution requires that another custom MultiKueue Admission Check is created aside from the one running for built-in Jobs.
 
 ## Alternatives
 
-<!--
-What other approaches did you consider, and why did you rule them out? These do
-not need to be as detailed as the proposal, but should include enough
-information to express the idea and why it was not acceptable.
--->
-
 1. Dedicated API for MultiKueue communication between admission check controller and abstraction layer controller.
 
 2. Don't do any code changes, a custom controller can: