kubernetes
/
community
mirror of https://github.com/kubernetes/community.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Merge pull request #1133 from jbeda/kep-focus 

Automatic merge from submit-queue. .

Clarify relationship of KEP to release note process

I'm opening this up to have a discussion on what the relationship between a KEP and the release note process is.  I see KEPs being most useful for things that will often span releases.  I *want* us to think bigger and across multiple releases.  Often times a KEP will be discussed and accepted before and outside of the release cycle.

I've also moved some stuff around so that this doc stands more on its own vs. being a "delta" on our current process.  In a years time this will be our current process and this won't read as clearly.
This commit is contained in:
Kubernetes Submit Queue 2017-09-26 13:03:00 -07:00 committed by GitHub
parent 5d96914f55 fcc75ae13b
commit 1eb3c68dab
1 changed files with 47 additions and 50 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

97
contributors/design-proposals/architecture/kubernetes-enhancement-proposal-process.md
View File

@ -62,9 +62,8 @@ A standardized development process for Kubernetes is proposed in order to
- persist project information in a Version Control System (VCS) for future
Kubernauts
- support the creation of _high value user facing_ information such as:
- release notes
- release announcement blog
- an overall project development roadmap
- motivation for impactful user facing changes
- support development across multiple repositories beyond `kubernetes/kubernetes`
- reserve GitHub issues for tracking work in flight rather than creating "umbrella"
issues
@ -75,7 +74,7 @@ A standardized development process for Kubernetes is proposed in order to
This process is supported by a unit of work called a Kubernetes Enhancement
Proposal or KEP. A KEP attempts to combine aspects of a
- feature, effort, and launch tracking document
- feature, and effort tracking document
- a product requirements document
- design document
@ -86,10 +85,8 @@ Special Interest Groups (SIGs).
For cross project SIGs such as SIG PM and SIG Release an abstraction beyond a
single GitHub Issue or Pull request seems to be required in order to understand
and communicate upcoming changes to Kubernetes. Particularly the generation of
release notes and the release announcement blog post are rather difficult and
have sometimes delayed a release due to incompleteness. In a blog post
describing the [road to Go 2][], Russ Cox explains
and communicate upcoming changes to Kubernetes. In a blog post describing the
[road to Go 2][], Russ Cox explains
> that it is difficult but essential to describe the significance of a problem
> in a way that someone working in a different environment can understand
@ -105,35 +102,16 @@ Documentation can take many forms and it is imperative to ensure that it is easy
to produce high quality user or developer focused documentation for a complex
project like Kubernetes.
The use of GitHub issues when proposing changes does not provide SIGs good
facilities for signaling approval or rejection of a proposed change to Kubernetes
since anyone can open a GitHub issue at any time. Additionally managing a proposed
change across multiple releases is somewhat cumbersome as labels and milestones
need to be updated for every release that a change spans. These long lived GitHub
issues lead to an ever increasing number of issues open against
`kubernetes/features` which itself has become a management problem.
Without a standardized mechanism for describing important enhancements our
talented technical writers and product managers struggle to weave a coherent
narrative explaining why a particular release is important. Additionally for
critical infrastructure such as Kubernetes adopters need a forward looking road
map in order to plan their adoption strategy.
In addition to the challenge of managing issues over time, searching for text
within an issue can be challenging. The flat hierarchy of issues can also make
navigation and categorization tricky. While not all community members might
not be comfortable using Git directly, it is imperative that as a community we
work to educate people on a standard set of tools so they can take their
experience to other projects they may decide to work on in the future. While
git is a fantastic version control system (VCS), it is not a project management
tool nor a cogent way of managing an architectural catalog or backlog; this
proposal is limited to motivating the creation of a standardized definition of
work in order to facilitate project management. This primitive for describing
a unit of work may also allow contributors to create their own personalized
view of the state of the project while relying on Git and GitHub for consistency
and durable storage.
Ideally release notes should [tell a story][] which is compelling enough to
encourage users and operators to upgrade their clusters. Without a standardized
mechanism for describing important enhancements our talented technical writers
and product managers struggle to weave a coherent narrative explaining why a
particular release is important. Additionally for critical infrastructure such
as Kubernetes adopters need a forward looking road map in order to plan their
adoption strategy.
The purpose of the KEP process is to reduce the amount of "tribal knowledge" in
our community. By moving decisions from a smattering of mailing lists, video
calls and hallway conversations into a well tracked artifact this process aims
to enhance communication and discoverability.
A KEP is broken into sections which can be merged into source control
incrementally in order to support an iterative development process. An important
@ -159,25 +137,20 @@ in either written or verbal communication to anyone besides the KEP author or
developer then consider creating a KEP. One concrete example is an enhancement
which should be communicated to SIG Release or SIG PM.
Without detailed information explaining the motivation for an enhancement SIGs
must first approve a proposal, agreeing to a motivation over a mailing list,
video call, or hallway conversation. During the release process this motivation
must be rediscovered by the SIG, hopefully by finding a design proposal. The
process of announcing an enhancement through release notes suggests another
heuristic for describing what work should be tracked through an KEP: anything
that would require a design proposal. In fact it is possible to consider a KEP
an enhancement to the design proposal process in which design proposals are
used throughout the process of proposing an enhancement, scoping its design,
tracking its implementation, and agreeing on criteria for graduation to general
availability.
Similarly, any technical effort (refactoring, major architectural change) that
will impact a large section of the development community should also be
communicated widely. The KEP process is suited for this even if it will have
zero impact on the typical user or operator.
As the local bodies of governance, SIGs should have broad latitude in describing
what constitutes an enhancement which should be tracked through the KEP process.
SIGs may find that helpful to enumerate what _does not_ require a KEP rather
SIGs may find that helpful to enumerate what _does not_ require a KEP rather
than what does. SIGs also have the freedom to customize the KEP template
according to their SIG specific concerns. For example the KEP template used
to track API changes will likely have different subsections than the template
for proposing governance changes.
according to their SIG specific concerns. For example the KEP template used to
track API changes will likely have different subsections than the template for
proposing governance changes. However, as changes start impacting other SIGs or
the larger developer community outside of a SIG, the KEP process should be used
to coordinate and communicate.
### KEP Template
@ -372,6 +345,30 @@ this proposal attempts to place these concerns within a general framework.
[accepted design and a proposal]: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/issues/914
[the organization of design proposals]: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/issues/918
### Github issues vs. KEPs
The use of GitHub issues when proposing changes does not provide SIGs good
facilities for signaling approval or rejection of a proposed change to Kubernetes
since anyone can open a GitHub issue at any time. Additionally managing a proposed
change across multiple releases is somewhat cumbersome as labels and milestones
need to be updated for every release that a change spans. These long lived GitHub
issues lead to an ever increasing number of issues open against
`kubernetes/features` which itself has become a management problem.
In addition to the challenge of managing issues over time, searching for text
within an issue can be challenging. The flat hierarchy of issues can also make
navigation and categorization tricky. While not all community members might
not be comfortable using Git directly, it is imperative that as a community we
work to educate people on a standard set of tools so they can take their
experience to other projects they may decide to work on in the future. While
git is a fantastic version control system (VCS), it is not a project management
tool nor a cogent way of managing an architectural catalog or backlog; this
proposal is limited to motivating the creation of a standardized definition of
work in order to facilitate project management. This primitive for describing
a unit of work may also allow contributors to create their own personalized
view of the state of the project while relying on Git and GitHub for consistency
and durable storage.
## Unresolved Questions
- How reviewers and approvers are assigned to a KEP