📖 ✨ 🧑🤝🧑 add proposal for Node Bootstrapping working group #11407
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
|
Hi @t-lo. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. 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-sigs/prow repository. |
k8s-ci-robot
added
needs-ok-to-test
|
"@elmiko" "@eljohnson92" I took the liberty to add you as co-stakeholders to the WG proposal - IIRC you expressed interest in participating. I hope that's OK? |
t-lo
force-pushed
the
t-lo/propose-wg-node-provisioning
branch
2 times, most recently
from
49bf126 to
bf5ce21
Compare
t-lo
force-pushed
the
t-lo/propose-wg-node-provisioning
branch
from
22ad278 to
6353aad
Compare
t-lo
changed the title
t-lo
force-pushed
the
t-lo/propose-wg-node-provisioning
branch
from
6353aad to
f61f4ee
Compare
|
Thank you Johanan, Fabrizio, and Stefan for tuning in! This is immensely helpful. Made a few changes to the proposal; reworked the whole user story part to focus on goals instead of implementations, and rephrased the "problem statement" section a bit to not hint at a solution when describing the issue. Added a new section on stability and compatibility - this really was the proverbial elephant in the room for me since in Flatcar, we put a massive (occasionally painful) focus on never breaking user workloads ever - kudos to Stefan for calling this out. I'll make sure to hold the working group proposals to an equally high standard. I don't think we're quite there yet but we're definitely making progress. Ready for another round of feedback! |
t-lo
force-pushed
the
t-lo/propose-wg-node-provisioning
branch
from
f61f4ee to
dbc9ed4
Compare
k8s-ci-robot
added
size/L
t-lo
force-pushed
the
t-lo/propose-wg-node-provisioning
branch
from
dbc9ed4 to
857dd3d
Compare
|
@sbueringer , @fabriziopandini what do you think? Could you give it another pass? |
|
I will try to come back to this after code freeze next week, I need to focus on stuff to get merged + CI signal and bandwidth is limited 😢 |
|
Also showing up, I will need some more time to read myself into all of this but my focus now is first the upcoming CAPI release! |
|
/retest |
t-lo
force-pushed
the
t-lo/propose-wg-node-provisioning
branch
from
77ca5e0 to
536ecda
Compare
|
/retest |
Co-authored-by: Johanan Liebermann <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Jakob Schrettenbrunner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Thilo Fromm <[email protected]>
t-lo
force-pushed
the
t-lo/propose-wg-node-provisioning
branch
from
536ecda to
ba7442a
Compare
|
/lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 5aed488f3075793a52ddf47fa7eda64d36334ac0
|
|
@fabriziopandini @elmiko I think this can be merged now? The WG is well established, up and running. First stabs at implementations are in progress, and we also started related contributions to development docs (Johanan is working on a PR to dev docs on using KubeVirt as a dev environment). |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: elmiko The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
/assign sbueringer |
|
/lgtm Would be great if other maintainers can also take a (final) look /assign @chrischdi @enxebre @fabriziopandini @vincepri |
|
/lgtm |
|
@t-lo I would recommend bringing this up one last time in the office hours and setting a lazy consensus of 1-2 weeks |
I'll bring it up in today's call, thanks @sbueringer . |
|
As discussed in the office hours, lazy consensus until February 19 If any of the other maintainers / approvers wants to chime in, now would be the time Just to clarify. In the office hours it was mentioned that the PR has 4 lgtms from maintainers. If I count correctly we are currently at 2 (of the affected areas / core CAPI overall). The list of maintainers can be found here: https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api/blob/main/OWNERS_ALIASES#L22-L27 (which is why I asked for additional feedback here: #11407 (comment)) |
| bootstrap providers. | ||
| I would like to read and to follow documentation, guidelines, and specifications | ||
| on the above. | ||
| I would like to offer a choice of node bootstrapping configuration systems to users, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can we include an illustrative example? e.g "I would like to enable the bootstrap API consumer to express intent to fine tune nodes by setting vm.dirty_ratio while not having to reimplement the logic to setup kubelet and let the machine become a Node" if that's a good representative?
|
|
||
| **Problem statement / Example issues** | ||
|
|
||
| As there is currently no OS provisioning configuration abstraction, the kubeadm bootstrap provider |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it's probably worth mentioning as part of the context that our API also has a knob that enables full customization via custom userdata secret
| - "@johananl" | ||
| - "@tormath1" | ||
| - "@fabriziopandini" | ||
| - "@sbueringer" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
happy to be included as reviewer as well
|
I dropped some feedback, no blockers. lgtm. |
What this PR does / why we need it:
Propose a working group for node bootstrapping and cluster provisioning.
The need for this working group originated from an ongoing discussion around separating cluster provisioning and node bootstrapping, as stated in the WG's User Story.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes
CC
Tags
/area provider/bootstrap-kubeadm
/area bootstrap
/kind documentation
/kind proposal