Merge pull request #1401 from jbeda/kep-update

Automatic merge from submit-queue.

KEP template update

This is based on input from @timothysc.  Still need to reconcile this with the instructions.
This commit is contained in:
Kubernetes Submit Queue 2017-11-17 16:46:59 -08:00 committed by GitHub
commit c24d47c77d
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
1 changed files with 92 additions and 125 deletions

View File

@ -1,67 +1,19 @@
# Title
This is the title of the KEP. Keep it simple and descriptive. A good title can
help communicate what the KEP is and should be considered as part of any review.
The *filename* for the KEP should include the KEP number along with the title.
The title should be lowercased and spaces/punctuation should be replaced with
`-`. As the KEP is approved and an official KEP number is allocated, the file
should be renamed.
To get started with this template:
* Make a copy in the appropriate directory. Name it `draft-YYYYMMDD-my-title.md`.
* Create a PR in the
[`kubernetes/community`](https://github.com/kubernetes/community) repo.
* Check in early. Do this once the document holds together and general
direction is understood by many in the sponsoring SIG. View anything marked as
a draft as a working document. 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.
* As a KEP is approved, rename the file yet again with the final KEP number.
The canonical place for the latest set of instructions (and the likely source of
this file) is
[here](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/design-proposals/architecture/0000-kep-template.md).
## Metadata
The `Metadata` section is intended to support the creation of tooling around the
KEP process. This will be a YAML section that is fenced as a code block.
See the KEP process for details on each of these items. This is here for easy
copy/pasting.
TODO(jbeda): Do we want to move this to the front the doc with a delimiter
(`---`) so it is easier to parse. Many static site generators use this and call
it "front matter".
TODO(jbeda): Do we want to have a "people database" to reduce the amount of
duplication on naming people here? This would be a simple map of github ID to
name and contact info.
```yaml
kep-number: draft-XXX
---
kep-number: draft-YYYYMMDD
title: My First KEP
authors:
- name: Jane Doe
github: janedoe
email: janedoe@example.com
- "@janedoe"
owning-sig: sig-xxx
participating-sigs:
- sig-aaa
- sig-bbb
reviewers:
- name: TBD
# - name: Alice Doe
# github: alicedoe
# email: alicedoe@example.com
- TBD
- "@alicedoe"
approvers:
- name: TBD
# - name: Oscar Doe
# github: oscardoe
# email: oscardoe@example.com
editor:
name: TBD
- TBD
- "@oscardoe"
editor: TBD
creation-date: yyyy-mm-dd
last-updated: yyyy-mm-dd
status: draft
@ -72,97 +24,126 @@ replaces:
- KEP-3
superseded-by:
- KEP-100
```
---
# Title
This is the title of the KEP.
Keep it simple and descriptive.
A good title can help communicate what the KEP is and should be considered as part of any review.
The *filename* for the KEP should include the KEP number along with the title.
The title should be lowercased and spaces/punctuation should be replaced with `-`.
As the KEP is approved and an official KEP number is allocated, the file should be renamed.
To get started with this template:
* Make a copy in the appropriate directory.
Name it `draft-YYYYMMDD-my-title.md`.
* Create a PR in the [`kubernetes/community`](https://github.com/kubernetes/community) repo.
* Check in early.
Do this once the document holds together and general direction is understood by many in the sponsoring SIG.
View anything marked as a draft as a working document.
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.
* As a KEP is approved, rename the file yet again with the final KEP number.
The canonical place for the latest set of instructions (and the likely source of this file) is [here](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/design-proposals/architecture/0000-kep-template.md).
The `Metadata` section above is intended to support the creation of tooling around the KEP process.
This will be a YAML section that is fenced as a code block.
See the KEP process for details on each of these items.
## Table of Contents
A table of contents is helpful for quickly jumping to sections of a KEP and for
highlighting any additional information provided beyond the standard KEP
template. [Tools for generating][] a table of contents from markdown are
available.
A table of contents is helpful for quickly jumping to sections of a KEP and for highlighting any additional information provided beyond the standard KEP template.
[Tools for generating][] a table of contents from markdown are available.
* [Table of Contents](#table-of-contents)
* [Summary](#summary)
* [Motivation](#motivation)
* [Goals](#goals)
* [Non-Goals](#non-goals)
* [Proposal](#proposal)
* [User Stories [optional]](#user-stories-optional)
* [Story 1](#story-1)
* [Story 2](#story-2)
* [Implementation Details/Notes/Constraints [optional]](#implementation-detailsnotesconstraints-optional)
* [Security Considerations](#security-considerations)
* [Graduation Criteria](#graduation-criteria)
* [Implementation History](#implementation-history)
* [Drawbacks [optional]](#drawbacks-optional)
* [Alternatives [optional]](#alternatives-optional)
[Tools for generating]: https://github.com/ekalinin/github-markdown-toc
## Summary
The `Summary` section is incredibly important for producing high quality user
focused documentation such as release notes or a development road map. 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, SIG Docs, and
SIG PM should help to ensure that the tone and content of the `Summary` section
is useful for a wide audience.
The `Summary` section is incredibly important for producing high quality user focused documentation such as release notes or a development road map.
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, SIG Docs, and SIG PM 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.
## Motivation
The `Motivation` section should describe
- why we believe this change is important
- what benefits are expected to be realized from the change
- the high level design goals
The `Motivation` section is important for getting all responsible parties to
understand the intention behind a change. The motivation section can optionally
provide links to [experience reports][] to demonstrate the interest in a KEP
within the wider Kubernetes community.
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
## Guide-level Explanation [optional]
### Goals
Merging a change to source control is a crucial, but not final, milestone in
the implementation of a KEP. Enhancements need to be explained to the Kubernetes
community. The `Guide-level Explaination` section should be used to explain a
KEP to another Kubernaut after implementation. Excellent guidance can be
found in the Rust RFC [guide-level explanation][] instructions.
List the specific goals of the KEP.
How will we know that this has succeeded?
### Non-Goals
[guide-level explanation]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/0000-template.md#guide-level-explanation
What is out of scope for his KEP?
Listing non-goals helps to focus discussion and make progress.
## Proposal
## Reference-level explanation
This is where we get down to the nitty gritty of what the proposal actually is.
Before submitting a detailed implementation plan, a KEP author might begin the
`Reference-level Explaination` by sketching high level design goals and any
mandatory requirements.
### User Stories [optional]
Communicating dependencies across multiple SIGs is an important use for KEPs.
Explaining how a KEP interacts with other KEPs and existing Kubernetes
functionality should be included in this section.
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.
The `Reference-level explaination` section should ideally contain enough
information for someone besides the author to begin working on an implementation
of the KEP. In a similar manner to the guidance on [implementing an RFC][] from
the Rust community, not all KEPs must be implemented immediately. Associating
each KEP with one or more issues filed against Kubernetes repositories allows
interested community members to track implementation.
#### Story 1
Excellent guidance can be found in the Rust RFC [reference-level explanation][]
instructions.
#### Story 2
[reference-level explaination]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/0000-template.md#reference-level-explanation
### Implementation Details/Notes/Constraints [optional]
[implementing an RFC]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/README.md#implementing-an-rfc
What are the caveats to the implementation?
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 releate.
### Security Considerations
Make sure that you consider the impact of this feature from the point of view of Security.
## Graduation Criteria
Gathering user feedback is crucial for building high quality experiences and
SIGs have the important responsibility of setting milestones for stability
and completeness. Hopefully the content previously contained in
[umbrella issues][] will be tracked in the `Graduation Criteria` section.
How will we know that this has succeeded?
Gathering user feedback is crucial for building high quality experiences and SIGs have the important responsibility of setting milestones for stability and completeness.
Hopefully the content previously contained in [umbrella issues][] will be tracked in the `Graduation Criteria` section.
[umbrella issues]: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/42752
## Implementation History
Major milestones in the life cycle of a KEP should be tracked in
`Implementation History`. Major milestones might include
Major milestones in the life cycle of a KEP should be tracked in `Implementation History`.
Major milestones might include
- the `Summary` and `Motivation` sections being merged signaling SIG acceptance
- the `Detailed Design` section being merged signaling agreement on a proposed
design
- 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
@ -174,18 +155,4 @@ Why should this KEP _not_ be implemented.
## Alternatives [optional]
Similar to the `Drawbacks` section the `Alternatives` section is used to
highlight and record other possible approaches to delivering the value proposed
by a KEP.
## Unresolved Questions [optional]
The `Unresolved Questions` section is used to parking lot issues not ready to be
addressed before implementation begins.
## Mentors [optional]
Mentors who can help a community member implement a KEP which follows its
`Detailed Design` are crucial to scaling the Kubernetes project. Potential
mentors can list their contact information using their preferred contact
information in the `Mentors` section.
Similar to the `Drawbacks` section the `Alternatives` section is used to highlight and record other possible approaches to delivering the value proposed by a KEP.