Add a KEP for artifact management. #721

brendandburns · 2019-01-24T05:31:36Z

keps/sig-contributor-experience/0034-artifact-management.md

BenTheElder · 2019-01-24T05:56:50Z

keps/sig-contributor-experience/0034-artifact-management.md

+ss to a
+project staging area relevant to their particular artifacts (either storage buck
+et or image 
+registry). Each project is free to manage their assets in the staging area however they feel


have we given any thought to excessive resource usage? If all projects have no limits here it seems like the resource usage could get pretty spectacular.

Storage is really, really cheap. I don't think this will be an issue. (though general cost management for k8s-infra is definitely being worked on, so we can detect and manage it if it occurs)

Fair, I was thinking moreso of bandwidth though (?)

FWIW I really appreciate this and am not trying to throw up any hurdles here, this has been an extremely common ask and will be really nice to have. :-)

BenTheElder · 2019-01-24T06:01:05Z

keps/sig-contributor-experience/0034-artifact-management.md

+title: Kubernetes Community Artifact Serving
+authors:
+  - "@brendandburns"
+owning-sig: sig-contributor-experience


Is this the right SIG? if so we should CC them
I might suggest release as a possible better fit (or maybe testing)?

I don't really care.

The right fit is actually the k8s-infra working group.

That working group is under the auspices of 4 different SIGs. I don't care which one we choose (and honestly I think this really just shows that this field doesn't fit all KEPs)

@justinsb @dims let me know which one you want here.

contrib-ex or cluster-lifecycle, IMO

ok, I'm sticking w/ contrib-ex unless there are violent objections.

This document describes how official artifacts (Container Images, Binaries) for the Kubernetes project are managed and distributed.

This really should be owned by sig-release.

calebamiles · 2019-01-24T07:07:24Z

/hold
use of NEXT_KEP_NUMBER is deprecated

brendandburns · 2019-01-24T18:28:07Z

@calebamiles What is the right process? The template still talks about NEXT_KEP_NUMBER perhaps we should update it?

thockin

Thanks for converting to KEP. I know the image promoted has a KEP but that is focused on GCR for now.

Is this a good place to accumulate the details of the mirroring / distribution / verification design? How about details of global redirector design and availability and monitoring and alerting?

There are tons of details that need to be debated and written down.

thockin · 2019-01-24T18:50:15Z

keps/sig-contributor-experience/0034-artifact-management.md

+title: Kubernetes Community Artifact Serving
+authors:
+  - "@brendandburns"
+owning-sig: sig-contributor-experience


contrib-ex or cluster-lifecycle, IMO

keps/sig-contributor-experience/0034-artifact-management.md

brendandburns · 2019-01-24T20:10:38Z

Comments addressed, still looking for feedback from @calebamiles about what I should do wrt NEXT_KEP_NUMBER.

brendandburns · 2019-01-24T20:11:13Z

@thockin wrt to the additional details, I'd prefer a commit and iterate approach (as suggested in the KEP template) rather than try to get it all correct here, I think we're going to be learning as we go anyway.

dims · 2019-01-24T20:25:09Z

I like this. +1 to iterate

/lgtm

cc @kubernetes/sig-contributor-experience-pr-reviews @nikhita @tpepper

brendandburns · 2019-01-24T23:38:54Z

@dims, thanks for the lgtm. Do you know the right process for the NEXT_KEP_NUMBER stuff? That seems like the last blocker....

keps/sig-contributor-experience/0034-artifact-management.md

not an approver or reviewer.

brendandburns · 2019-01-26T02:39:32Z

Comments addressed. I personally don't think this needs any more bike-shedding. @dims @justinsb @thockin please indicate if there are any blockers, otherwise let's merge and iterate as needed.

justaugustus · 2019-01-26T10:35:22Z

@brendandburns -- I would argue that this isn't bikeshedding, or maybe "bikeshedding for cause".

k8s-infra is a Working Group, which composed of:

SIG Arch
SIG ContribEx
SIG Release
SIG Testing

By SC definition, it is meant to be a short-lived effort.
Ultimately, the code and maintenance of process and procedure for artifact management will belong to some subproject, and by extension, the KEP should be owned by that subproject's SIG.

I think given the SIGs that are involved in the effort, SIG Release and the Release Engineering subproject is the most appropriate place.

There is also a KEP being discussed for building Kubernetes artifacts (#707) and it would be nice if these two were close together.

justaugustus · 2019-01-26T10:50:34Z

As the question of ownership is between SIG ContribEx and SIG Release, I'm also adding the respective Chairs/TLs:

ContribEx:
/assign @Phillels @parispittman @cblecker @nikhita

Release (+1 from me):
/assign @calebamiles @tpepper

parispittman · 2019-01-26T21:05:51Z

This seems like it should be owned by SIG Release. If it's owned by contribex - who will maintain and be in the owners files? Assuming dims, justinsb, and brendandburns? I will circulate this on our mailing list.

spiffxp · 2019-01-26T21:55:10Z

keps/sig-contributor-experience/20190121-artifact-management.md

+title: Kubernetes Community Artifact Serving
+authors:
+  - "@brendandburns"
+owning-sig: sig-contributor-experience


strong disagree that contribex should own this, IMO this is sig-release, under their release-engineering subproject

I would be more comfortable with the merge and iterate approach if we got this right

+1 @spiffxp

+100. I think that comment was also made in previous versions too.

+1 about sig-release.

cc @cblecker

Yeah, this shouldn't be contribex. +1 to sig-release

brendandburns · 2019-01-27T05:04:17Z

I'm fine with sig-release. @thockin any concerns?

I think that the k8s-infra working group isn't really a traditional working group. (I actually think it's more like a committee than a working group) it's never going to disband imho, since we're always going to need people to be on-call for the infrastructure that we deploy.

javier-b-perez

LGTM

timothysc · 2019-01-29T00:42:09Z

FWIW other foundations hire full-time staff to manage their infra, and imo CNCF should do the same.

cblecker

I'm okay with merge and iterate, provided the owning sig is changed

cblecker · 2019-01-29T06:05:21Z

keps/sig-contributor-experience/20190121-artifact-management.md

+title: Kubernetes Community Artifact Serving
+authors:
+  - "@brendandburns"
+owning-sig: sig-contributor-experience


Yeah, this shouldn't be contribex. +1 to sig-release

justinsb · 2019-01-30T21:00:58Z

I think this looks great and is in keeping with what we discussed / agreed in the meetings. I'm now all enthusiastic to implement artifacts.k8s.io/kops now as a ~~victim~~ guinea pig :-)

justaugustus · 2019-01-30T22:51:43Z

Closing this in favor of #791, which updates the owning SIG to SIG Release.
Please send approvals over there.

/close

k8s-ci-robot · 2019-01-30T22:51:44Z

@justaugustus: Closed this PR.

In response to this:

Closing this in favor of #791, which updates the owning SIG to SIG Release.
Please send approvals over there.

/close

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.

brendandburns · 2019-01-30T23:32:57Z

Please re-open, I don't think the process of hijacking into a new PR is a good idea.

Especially since you could have just added a Github suggestion to do the edit.

brendandburns · 2019-01-30T23:33:10Z

/open

justaugustus · 2019-01-30T23:49:08Z

The code suggestion was dismissed, but we've got it sorted now
/reopen

k8s-ci-robot · 2019-01-30T23:49:08Z

@justaugustus: Failed to re-open PR: state cannot be changed. The master branch was force-pushed or recreated.

In response to this:

The code suggestion was dismissed, but we've got it sorted now
/reopen

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.

k8s-ci-robot requested review from jdumars and Phillels January 24, 2019 05:31

brendandburns removed sig/architecture Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Architecture. sig/pm labels Jan 24, 2019

brendandburns requested review from justinsb and dims and removed request for jdumars and Phillels January 24, 2019 05:32

brendandburns mentioned this pull request Jan 24, 2019

Add an initial artifact serving design doc. kubernetes/k8s.io#171

Closed

BenTheElder reviewed Jan 24, 2019

View reviewed changes

keps/sig-contributor-experience/0034-artifact-management.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

BenTheElder reviewed Jan 24, 2019

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Jan 24, 2019

thockin reviewed Jan 24, 2019

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot added sig/architecture Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Architecture. sig/pm labels Jan 24, 2019

k8s-ci-robot assigned dims Jan 24, 2019

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 24, 2019

listx reviewed Jan 25, 2019

View reviewed changes

keps/sig-contributor-experience/0034-artifact-management.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

brendandburns force-pushed the master branch from 04f2121 to f155a07 Compare January 26, 2019 02:36

k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/blocked-paths Indicates that a PR should not merge because it touches files in blocked paths. label Jan 26, 2019

Add a KEP for artifact management

60269c4

brendandburns force-pushed the master branch from f155a07 to 60269c4 Compare January 26, 2019 02:38

k8s-ci-robot assigned calebamiles, cblecker, nikhita, parispittman, Phillels and tpepper Jan 26, 2019

spiffxp reviewed Jan 26, 2019

View reviewed changes

javier-b-perez approved these changes Jan 28, 2019

View reviewed changes

cblecker requested changes Jan 29, 2019

View reviewed changes

justaugustus mentioned this pull request Jan 30, 2019

KEP: Artifact management #791

Merged

k8s-ci-robot closed this Jan 30, 2019

justaugustus removed the sig/pm label Apr 19, 2020

Add a KEP for artifact management. #721

Add a KEP for artifact management. #721

Conversation

brendandburns commented Jan 24, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

timothysc Jan 25, 2019 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

calebamiles commented Jan 24, 2019

brendandburns commented Jan 24, 2019

thockin left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

brendandburns commented Jan 24, 2019

brendandburns commented Jan 24, 2019

dims commented Jan 24, 2019

brendandburns commented Jan 24, 2019

brendandburns commented Jan 26, 2019

justaugustus commented Jan 26, 2019

justaugustus commented Jan 26, 2019

parispittman commented Jan 26, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

brendandburns commented Jan 27, 2019

javier-b-perez left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

timothysc commented Jan 29, 2019

cblecker left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

justinsb commented Jan 30, 2019

justaugustus commented Jan 30, 2019

k8s-ci-robot commented Jan 30, 2019

brendandburns commented Jan 30, 2019 • edited Loading

brendandburns commented Jan 30, 2019

justaugustus commented Jan 30, 2019

k8s-ci-robot commented Jan 30, 2019

timothysc Jan 25, 2019 •

edited

Loading

thockin left a comment •

edited

Loading

brendandburns commented Jan 30, 2019 •

edited

Loading