forked from kubernetes/community
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Merge pull request kubernetes#967 from calebamiles/propose-adopting-r…
…ust-rfc-process Propose adopting the Rust RFC process
- Loading branch information
Showing
1 changed file
with
390 additions
and
0 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
390 changes: 390 additions & 0 deletions
390
...butors/design-proposals/architecture/kubernetes-enhancement-proposal-process.md
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,390 @@ | ||
| # Kubernetes Enhancement Proposal Process | ||
|
|
||
| ## Metadata | ||
| ``` | ||
| --- | ||
| metadata: | ||
| number: 0001 | ||
| state: opened | ||
| authors: | ||
| - author: | ||
| name: caleb miles | ||
| github: @calebamiles | ||
| slack: @calebamiles | ||
| owners: | ||
| - sig-release | ||
| - sig-pm | ||
| - sig-architecture | ||
| - sig-testing | ||
| - steering-committee | ||
| links: | ||
| issues: | ||
| - [someIssueURL]() | ||
| prs: | ||
| - https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/967 | ||
| discussions: | ||
| - https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/kubernetes-dev/65A-3ULYPB0 | ||
| - https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/kubernetes-sig-architecture/t-1EqeEoLPA | ||
| documentation: | ||
| - [someDocsLinkURL]() | ||
| related: | ||
| - [KEP template](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/1124) | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ## Table of Contents | ||
|
|
||
| - [Kubernetes Enhancement Proposal Process](#kubernetes-enhancement-proposal-process) | ||
| - [Metadata](#metadata) | ||
| - [Summary](#summary) | ||
| - [Motivation](#motivation) | ||
| - [Reference-level explanation](#reference-level-explanation) | ||
| - [What type of work should be tracked by a KEP](#what-type-of-work-should-be-tracked-by-a-kep) | ||
| - [KEP Template](#kep-template) | ||
| - [KEP Workflow](#kep-workflow) | ||
| - [Git and GitHub Implementation](#git-and-github-implementation) | ||
| - [KEP Editor Role](#kep-editor-role) | ||
| - [Important Metrics](#important-metrics) | ||
| - [Prior Art](#prior-art) | ||
| - [Graduation Criteria](#graduation-criteria) | ||
| - [Drawbacks](#drawbacks) | ||
| - [Alternatives](#alternatives) | ||
| - [Unresolved Questions](#unresolved-questions) | ||
| - [Mentors](#mentors) | ||
|
|
||
| ## Summary | ||
|
|
||
| A standardized development process for Kubernetes is proposed in order to | ||
|
|
||
| - provide a common structure for proposing changes to Kubernetes | ||
| - ensure that the motivation for a change is clear | ||
| - allow for the enumeration stability milestones and stability graduation | ||
| criteria | ||
| - 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 | ||
| - support development across multiple repositories beyond `kubernetes/kubernetes` | ||
| - reserve GitHub issues for tracking work in flight rather than creating "umbrella" | ||
| issues | ||
| - ensure community participants are successfully able to drive changes to | ||
| completion across one or more releases while stakeholders are adequately | ||
| represented throughout the process | ||
|
|
||
| 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 | ||
| - a product requirements document | ||
| - design document | ||
|
|
||
| into one file which is created incrementally in collaboration with one or more | ||
| Special Interest Groups (SIGs). | ||
|
|
||
| ## Motivation | ||
|
|
||
| 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 | ||
|
|
||
| > 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 | ||
| as a project it is vital to be able to track the chain of custody for a proposed | ||
| enhancement from conception through implementation. This proposal does not | ||
| attempt to mandate how SIGs track their work internally, however, it is | ||
| suggested that SIGs which do not adhere to a process which allows for their hard | ||
| work to be explained to others in the wider Kubernetes community will see their | ||
| work wallow in the shadows of obscurity. At the very least [survey data][] | ||
| suggest that high quality documentation is crucial to project adoption. | ||
| 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. | ||
|
|
||
| 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. | ||
|
|
||
| A KEP is broken into sections which can be merged into source control | ||
| incrementally in order to support an iterative development process. An important | ||
| goal of the KEP process is ensuring that the process for submitting the content | ||
| contained in [design proposals][] is both clear and efficient. The KEP process | ||
| is intended to create high quality uniform design and implementation documents | ||
| for SIGs to deliberate. | ||
|
|
||
| [tell a story]: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2017/08/31/Rust-1.20.html | ||
| [road to Go 2]: https://blog.golang.org/toward-go2 | ||
| [survey data]: http://opensourcesurvey.org/2017/ | ||
| [design proposals]: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/tree/master/contributors/design-proposals | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ## Reference-level explanation | ||
|
|
||
| ### What type of work should be tracked by a KEP | ||
|
|
||
| The definition of what constitutes an "enhancement" is a foundational concern | ||
| for the Kubernetes project. Roughly any Kubernetes user or operator facing | ||
| enhancement should follow the KEP process: if an enhancement would be described | ||
| 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. | ||
|
|
||
| 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 | ||
| 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. | ||
|
|
||
| ### KEP Template | ||
|
|
||
| The template for a KEP is precisely defined in the [template proposal][] | ||
|
|
||
| [template proposal]: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/1124 | ||
|
|
||
| ### KEP Workflow | ||
|
|
||
| A KEP is proposed to have the following states | ||
|
|
||
| - **opened**: a new KEP has been filed but not triaged by the responsible SIG or | ||
| working group | ||
| - **accepted**: the motivation has been accepted by the SIG or working group as in | ||
| road map | ||
| - **scoped**: the design has been approved by the SIG or working group | ||
| - **started**: the implementation of the KEP has begun | ||
| - **implemented**: the implementation of the KEP is complete | ||
| - **deferred**: the KEP has been postponed by the SIG or working group despite | ||
| agreement on the motivation | ||
| - **superseded**: the KEP has been superseded by another KEP | ||
| - **retired**: the implementation of the KEP has been removed | ||
| - **rejected**: the KEP has been rejected by the SIG or working group | ||
| - **orphaned**: the author or developer of the KEP is no longer willing or able | ||
| to complete implementation | ||
|
|
||
| with possible paths through the state space | ||
|
|
||
| - opened -> deferred (a) | ||
| - opened -> rejected (b) | ||
| - opened -> orphaned (c) | ||
| - opened -> accepted -> orphaned (d) | ||
| - opened -> accepted -> scoped -> superseded (e) | ||
| - opened -> accepted -> scoped -> orphaned (f) | ||
| - opened -> accepted -> scoped -> started -> retired (g) | ||
| - opened -> accepted -> scoped -> started -> orphaned (h) | ||
| - opened -> accepted -> scoped -> started -> superseded (i) | ||
| - opened -> accepted -> scoped -> started -> implemented (j) | ||
| - opened -> accepted -> scoped -> started -> implemented -> retired (k) | ||
|
|
||
| the happy path is denoted by (j) where an KEP is opened; accepted by a SIG as in | ||
| their roadmap; fleshed out with a design; started; and finally implemented. As | ||
| Kubernetes continues to mature, hopefully metrics on the utilization of features | ||
| will drive decisions on what features to maintain and which to deprecate and so | ||
| it is possible that a KEP would be retired if its functionality no longer provides | ||
| sufficient value to the community. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Git and GitHub Implementation | ||
|
|
||
| Practically an KEP would be implemented as a pull request to a central repository | ||
| with the following example structure | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| ├── 0000-kep-template.md | ||
| ├── CODEOWNERS | ||
| ├── index.md | ||
| ├── sig-architecture | ||
| │ ├── deferred | ||
| │ ├── orphaned | ||
| │ └── retired | ||
| ├── sig-network | ||
| │ ├── deferred | ||
| │ ├── kube-dns | ||
| │ ├── orphaned | ||
| │ └── retired | ||
| ├── sig-node | ||
| │ ├── deferred | ||
| │ ├── kublet | ||
| │ ├── orphaned | ||
| │ └── retired | ||
| ├── sig-release | ||
| │ ├── deferred | ||
| │ ├── orphaned | ||
| │ └── retired | ||
| ├── sig-storage | ||
| │ ├── deferred | ||
| │ ├── orphaned | ||
| │ └── retired | ||
| ├── unsorted-to-be-used-by-newcomers-only | ||
| └── wg-resource-management | ||
| ├── deferred | ||
| ├── orphaned | ||
| └── retired | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| where each SIG or working group is given a top level directory with subprojects | ||
| maintained by the SIG listed in sub directories. For newcomers to the community | ||
| an `unsorted-to-be-used-by-newcomers-only` directory may be used before an KEP | ||
| can be properly routed to a SIG although hopefully if discussion for a potential | ||
| KEP begins on the mailing lists proper routing information will be provided to | ||
| the KEP author. Additionally a top level index of KEPs may be helpful for people | ||
| looking for a complete list of KEPs. There should be basic CI to ensure that an | ||
| `index.md` remains up to date. | ||
|
|
||
| Ideally no work would begin within the repositories of the Kubernetes organization | ||
| before a KEP has been approved by the responsible SIG or working group. While the | ||
| details of how SIGs organize their work is beyond the scope of this proposal one | ||
| possibility would be for each charter SIG to create a top level repository within | ||
| the Kubernetes org where implementation issues managed by that SIG would be filed. | ||
|
|
||
| ### KEP Editor Role | ||
|
|
||
| Taking a cue from the [Python PEP process][], I believe that a group of KEP editors | ||
| will be required to make this process successful; the job of an KEP editor is | ||
| likely very similar to the [PEP editor responsibilities][] and will hopefully | ||
| provide another opportunity for people who do not write code daily to contribute | ||
| to Kubernetes. | ||
|
|
||
| In keeping with the PEP editors which | ||
|
|
||
| > Read the PEP to check if it is ready: sound and complete. The ideas must make | ||
| > technical sense, even if they don't seem likely to be accepted. | ||
| > The title should accurately describe the content. | ||
| > Edit the PEP for language (spelling, grammar, sentence structure, etc.), markup | ||
| > (for reST PEPs), code style (examples should match PEP 8 & 7). | ||
| KEP editors should generally not pass judgement on a KEP beyond editorial | ||
| corrections. | ||
|
|
||
| [Python PEP process]: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/ | ||
| [PEP editor responsibilities]: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/#pep-editor-responsibilities-workflow | ||
|
|
||
| ### Important Metrics | ||
|
|
||
| It is proposed that the primary metrics which would signal the success or | ||
| failure of the KEP process are | ||
|
|
||
| - how many "features" are tracked with a KEP | ||
| - distribution of time a KEP spends in each state | ||
| - KEP rejection rate | ||
| - PRs referencing a KEP merged per week | ||
| - number of issued open which reference a KEP | ||
| - number of contributors who authored a KEP | ||
| - number of contributors who authored a KEP for the first time | ||
| - number of orphaned KEPs | ||
| - number of retired KEPs | ||
| - number of superseded KEPs | ||
|
|
||
| ### Prior Art | ||
|
|
||
| The KEP process as proposed was essentially stolen from the [Rust RFC process] which | ||
| itself seems to be very similar to the [Python PEP process][] | ||
|
|
||
| [Rust RFC process]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs | ||
|
|
||
| ## Graduation Criteria | ||
|
|
||
| should hit at least the following milestones | ||
|
|
||
| - a release note draft can be generated by referring primarily to KEP content | ||
| - a yearly road map is expressed as a KEP | ||
|
|
||
| ## Drawbacks | ||
|
|
||
| Any additional process has the potential to engender resentment within the | ||
| community. There is also a risk that the KEP process as designed will not | ||
| sufficiently address the scaling challenges we face today. PR review bandwidth is | ||
| already at a premium and we may find that the KEP process introduces an unreasonable | ||
| bottleneck on our development velocity. | ||
|
|
||
| It certainly can be argued that the lack of a dedicated issue/defect tracker | ||
| beyond GitHub issues contributes to our challenges in managing a project as large | ||
| as Kubernetes, however, given that other large organizations, including GitHub | ||
| itself, make effective use of GitHub issues perhaps the argument is overblown. | ||
|
|
||
| The centrality of Git and GitHub within the KEP process also may place too high | ||
| a barrier to potential contributors, however, given that both Git and GitHub are | ||
| required to contribute code changes to Kubernetes today perhaps it would be reasonable | ||
| to invest in providing support to those unfamiliar with this tooling. | ||
|
|
||
| Expanding the proposal template beyond the single sentence description currently | ||
| required in the [features issue template][] may be a heavy burden for non native | ||
| English speakers and here the role of the KEP editor combined with kindness and | ||
| empathy will be crucial to making the process successful. | ||
|
|
||
| [features issue template]: https://github.com/kubernetes/features/blob/master/ISSUE_TEMPLATE.md | ||
|
|
||
| ## Alternatives | ||
|
|
||
| This KEP process is related to | ||
| - the generation of a [architectural roadmap][] | ||
| - the fact that the [what constitutes a feature][] is still undefined | ||
| - [issue management][] | ||
| - the difference between an [accepted design and a proposal][] | ||
| - [the organization of design proposals][] | ||
|
|
||
| this proposal attempts to place these concerns within a general framework. | ||
|
|
||
| [architectural roadmap]: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/issues/952 | ||
| [what constitutes a feature]: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/issues/531 | ||
| [issue management]: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/issues/580 | ||
| [accepted design and a proposal]: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/issues/914 | ||
| [the organization of design proposals]: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/issues/918 | ||
|
|
||
| ## Unresolved Questions | ||
|
|
||
| - How reviewers and approvers are assigned to a KEP | ||
| - Approval decision process for a KEP | ||
| - Example schedule, deadline, and time frame for each stage of a KEP | ||
| - Communication/notification mechanisms | ||
| - Review meetings and escalation procedure | ||
| - Decision on where development should occur | ||
|
|
||
| ## Mentors | ||
|
|
||
| - caleb miles | ||
| - github: [calebamiles](https://github.com/calebamiles/) | ||
| - slack: [calebamiles](https://coreos.slack.com/team/caleb.miles) | ||
| - email: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) | ||
| - pronoun: "he" |