From f6a735ff165b587a5ff71150f18e6e97a9b4f333 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Carlos Panato <ctadeu@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 10:19:39 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] KEP-2853: Initial Draft of branch rename for k/k

Signed-off-by: Carlos Panato <ctadeu@gmail.com>
---
 .../README.md                                 | 760 ++++++++++++++++++
 .../kep.yaml                                  |  54 ++
 2 files changed, 814 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 keps/sig-release/2853-kubernetes-kubernetes-repository-branch-rename/README.md
 create mode 100644 keps/sig-release/2853-kubernetes-kubernetes-repository-branch-rename/kep.yaml

diff --git a/keps/sig-release/2853-kubernetes-kubernetes-repository-branch-rename/README.md b/keps/sig-release/2853-kubernetes-kubernetes-repository-branch-rename/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..3cce2e71b94
--- /dev/null
+++ b/keps/sig-release/2853-kubernetes-kubernetes-repository-branch-rename/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,760 @@
+<!--
+**Note:** When your KEP is complete, all of these comment blocks should be removed.
+
+To get started with this template:
+
+- [ ] **Pick a hosting SIG.**
+  Make sure that the problem space is something the SIG is interested in taking
+  up. KEPs should not be checked in without a sponsoring SIG.
+- [ ] **Create an issue in kubernetes/enhancements**
+  When filing an enhancement tracking issue, please make sure to complete all
+  fields in that template. One of the fields asks for a link to the KEP. You
+  can leave that blank until this KEP is filed, and then go back to the
+  enhancement and add the link.
+- [ ] **Make a copy of this template directory.**
+  Copy this template into the owning SIG's directory and name it
+  `NNNN-short-descriptive-title`, where `NNNN` is the issue number (with no
+  leading-zero padding) assigned to your enhancement above.
+- [ ] **Fill out as much of the kep.yaml file as you can.**
+  At minimum, you should fill in the "Title", "Authors", "Owning-sig",
+  "Status", and date-related fields.
+- [ ] **Fill out this file as best you can.**
+  At minimum, you should fill in the "Summary" and "Motivation" sections.
+  These should be easy if you've preflighted the idea of the KEP with the
+  appropriate SIG(s).
+- [ ] **Create a PR for this KEP.**
+  Assign it to people in the SIG who are sponsoring this process.
+- [ ] **Merge early and iterate.**
+  Avoid getting hung up on specific details and instead aim to get the goals of
+  the KEP clarified and merged quickly. The best way to do this is to just
+  start with the high-level sections and fill out details incrementally in
+  subsequent PRs.
+
+Just because a KEP is merged does not mean it is complete or approved. Any KEP
+marked as `provisional` is a working document and subject to change. You can
+denote sections that are under active debate as follows:
+
+```
+<<[UNRESOLVED optional short context or usernames ]>>
+Stuff that is being argued.
+<<[/UNRESOLVED]>>
+```
+
+When editing KEPS, aim for tightly-scoped, single-topic PRs to keep discussions
+focused. If you disagree with what is already in a document, open a new PR
+with suggested changes.
+
+One KEP corresponds to one "feature" or "enhancement" for its whole lifecycle.
+You do not need a new KEP to move from beta to GA, for example. If
+new details emerge that belong in the KEP, edit the KEP. Once a feature has become
+"implemented", major changes should get new KEPs.
+
+The canonical place for the latest set of instructions (and the likely source
+of this file) is [here](/keps/NNNN-kep-template/README.md).
+
+**Note:** Any PRs to move a KEP to `implementable`, or significant changes once
+it is marked `implementable`, must be approved by each of the KEP approvers.
+If none of those approvers are still appropriate, then changes to that list
+should be approved by the remaining approvers and/or the owning SIG (or
+SIG Architecture for cross-cutting KEPs).
+-->
+# KEP-NNNN: Your short, descriptive title
+
+<!--
+This is the title of your KEP. Keep it short, simple, and descriptive. A good
+title can help communicate what the KEP is and should be considered as part of
+any review.
+-->
+
+<!--
+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.
+
+Ensure the TOC is wrapped with
+  <code>&lt;!-- toc --&rt;&lt;!-- /toc --&rt;</code>
+tags, and then generate with `hack/update-toc.sh`.
+-->
+
+<!-- toc -->
+- [Release Signoff Checklist](#release-signoff-checklist)
+- [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)
+  - [Notes/Constraints/Caveats (Optional)](#notesconstraintscaveats-optional)
+  - [Risks and Mitigations](#risks-and-mitigations)
+- [Design Details](#design-details)
+  - [Test Plan](#test-plan)
+  - [Graduation Criteria](#graduation-criteria)
+  - [Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy](#upgrade--downgrade-strategy)
+  - [Version Skew Strategy](#version-skew-strategy)
+- [Production Readiness Review Questionnaire](#production-readiness-review-questionnaire)
+  - [Feature Enablement and Rollback](#feature-enablement-and-rollback)
+  - [Rollout, Upgrade and Rollback Planning](#rollout-upgrade-and-rollback-planning)
+  - [Monitoring Requirements](#monitoring-requirements)
+  - [Dependencies](#dependencies)
+  - [Scalability](#scalability)
+  - [Troubleshooting](#troubleshooting)
+- [Implementation History](#implementation-history)
+- [Drawbacks](#drawbacks)
+- [Alternatives](#alternatives)
+- [Infrastructure Needed (Optional)](#infrastructure-needed-optional)
+<!-- /toc -->
+
+## Release Signoff Checklist
+
+<!--
+**ACTION REQUIRED:** In order to merge code into a release, there must be an
+issue in [kubernetes/enhancements] referencing this KEP and targeting a release
+milestone **before the [Enhancement Freeze](https://git.k8s.io/sig-release/releases)
+of the targeted release**.
+
+For enhancements that make changes to code or processes/procedures in core
+Kubernetes—i.e., [kubernetes/kubernetes], we require the following Release
+Signoff checklist to be completed.
+
+Check these off as they are completed for the Release Team to track. These
+checklist items _must_ be updated for the enhancement to be released.
+-->
+
+Items marked with (R) are required *prior to targeting to a milestone / release*.
+
+- [ ] (R) Enhancement issue in release milestone, which links to KEP dir in [kubernetes/enhancements] (not the initial KEP PR)
+- [ ] (R) KEP approvers have approved the KEP status as `implementable`
+- [ ] (R) Design details are appropriately documented
+- [ ] (R) Test plan is in place, giving consideration to SIG Architecture and SIG Testing input (including test refactors)
+  - [ ] e2e Tests for all Beta API Operations (endpoints)
+  - [ ] (R) Ensure GA e2e tests for meet requirements for [Conformance Tests](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/conformance-tests.md)
+  - [ ] (R) Minimum Two Week Window for GA e2e tests to prove flake free
+- [ ] (R) Graduation criteria is in place
+  - [ ] (R) [all GA Endpoints](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/1806) must be hit by [Conformance Tests](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/conformance-tests.md)
+- [ ] (R) Production readiness review completed
+- [ ] (R) Production readiness review approved
+- [ ] "Implementation History" section is up-to-date for milestone
+- [ ] User-facing documentation has been created in [kubernetes/website], for publication to [kubernetes.io]
+- [ ] Supporting documentation—e.g., additional design documents, links to mailing list discussions/SIG meetings, relevant PRs/issues, release notes
+
+<!--
+**Note:** This checklist is iterative and should be reviewed and updated every time this enhancement is being considered for a milestone.
+-->
+
+[kubernetes.io]: https://kubernetes.io/
+[kubernetes/enhancements]: https://git.k8s.io/enhancements
+[kubernetes/kubernetes]: https://git.k8s.io/kubernetes
+[kubernetes/website]: https://git.k8s.io/website
+
+## Summary
+
+<!--
+This section is incredibly important for producing high-quality, user-focused
+documentation such as release notes or a development roadmap. 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 and SIG Docs
+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.
+
+Both in this section and below, follow the guidelines of the [documentation
+style guide]. In particular, wrap lines to a reasonable length, to make it
+easier for reviewers to cite specific portions, and to minimize diff churn on
+updates.
+
+[documentation style guide]: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/guide/style-guide.md
+-->
+
+Many communities, both on GitHub and in the wider Git community, are considering renaming the default branch name of their repository from `master`. The Kubernetes GitHub repositories is gradually renaming the default branch of our own repositories from `master` to `main`.
+This KEP is to we rename the branch for the main repository in the Kubernetes community.
+
+## Motivation
+
+<!--
+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
+-->
+
+In the Kubernetes community and other communities, there is an effort to make all the language and terms more inclusive. One small step to make that is to change the current branch name to one that is more inclusive and does not harmful and exclusionary.
+
+Our biggest repository is [kubernetes/kubernetes](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes), and this has a lot of open Pull Requests and several other forks, clones that use that for downstream signal or a custom build.
+
+Changing the branch name might cause issues for downstream consumers, our contributors, and the community in general.
+
+For that, we are creating this KEP to have a plan to address the issues and communication.
+
+### Goals
+
+<!--
+List the specific goals of the KEP. What is it trying to achieve? How will we
+know that this has succeeded?
+-->
+The main goal is to be more inclusive using better naming.
+
+### Non-Goals
+
+<!--
+What is out of scope for this KEP? Listing non-goals helps to focus discussion
+and make progress.
+-->
+This applies only to the main Kubernetes GitHub repository [kubernetes/kubernetes](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes).
+Other repositories will follow a similar approach but at their timeframe.
+
+## Proposal
+
+<!--
+This is where we get down to the specifics of what the proposal actually is.
+This should have enough detail that reviewers can understand exactly what
+you're proposing, but should not include things like API designs or
+implementation. What is the desired outcome and how do we measure success?.
+The "Design Details" section below is for the real
+nitty-gritty.
+-->
+- The change can be applied in the middle of December 2021. This is a good time because we will have less activity due to the Christmas and new year celebrations
+- Announce the change in the kubernetes-dev and kubernetes-announcement mailing list and maybe in a blog post. As well as use Twitter and other social media to announce.
+- Change all open Pull Requests to the `Draft mode` with that when we rename the branch, the tests will not be triggered and will avoid a massive queue in the CI infrastructure.
+- Update all Prow jobs that use `kubernetes/kubernetes` and use the `master` branch to listen to the `main` branch as well
+- Follow the guide on https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/github-management/default-branch-migration.md to rename the repository branch name.
+- After the branch rename, announce that in the mailing list
+- Update all Prow jobs that use `kubernetes/kubernetes` and to remove the `master` branch
+- Convert on demand the open Pull Requests from the `Draft mode` to `Review ready mode`
+
+
+References:
+- https://github.com/kubernetes/org/issues/2222
+- https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/2853
+- https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/105601
+- https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/github-management/default-branch-migration.md
+
+- https://github.com/github/renaming
+
+### User Stories (Optional)
+
+<!--
+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.
+-->
+
+#### Story 1
+
+#### Story 2
+
+### Notes/Constraints/Caveats (Optional)
+
+<!--
+What are the caveats to the proposal?
+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 relate.
+-->
+
+### Risks and Mitigations
+
+<!--
+What are the risks of this proposal, and how do we mitigate? Think broadly.
+For example, consider both security and how this will impact the larger
+Kubernetes ecosystem.
+
+How will security be reviewed, and by whom?
+
+How will UX be reviewed, and by whom?
+
+Consider including folks who also work outside the SIG or subproject.
+-->
+
+## Design Details
+
+<!--
+This section should contain enough information that the specifics of your
+change are understandable. This may include API specs (though not always
+required) or even code snippets. If there's any ambiguity about HOW your
+proposal will be implemented, this is the place to discuss them.
+-->
+
+### Test Plan
+
+<!--
+**Note:** *Not required until targeted at a release.*
+
+Consider the following in developing a test plan for this enhancement:
+- Will there be e2e and integration tests, in addition to unit tests?
+- How will it be tested in isolation vs with other components?
+
+No need to outline all of the test cases, just the general strategy. Anything
+that would count as tricky in the implementation, and anything particularly
+challenging to test, should be called out.
+
+All code is expected to have adequate tests (eventually with coverage
+expectations). Please adhere to the [Kubernetes testing guidelines][testing-guidelines]
+when drafting this test plan.
+
+[testing-guidelines]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-testing/testing.md
+-->
+N/A
+
+### Graduation Criteria
+
+<!--
+**Note:** *Not required until targeted at a release.*
+
+Define graduation milestones.
+
+These may be defined in terms of API maturity, or as something else. The KEP
+should keep this high-level with a focus on what signals will be looked at to
+determine graduation.
+
+Consider the following in developing the graduation criteria for this enhancement:
+- [Maturity levels (`alpha`, `beta`, `stable`)][maturity-levels]
+- [Deprecation policy][deprecation-policy]
+
+Clearly define what graduation means by either linking to the [API doc
+definition](https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/overview/kubernetes-api/#api-versioning)
+or by redefining what graduation means.
+
+In general we try to use the same stages (alpha, beta, GA), regardless of how the
+functionality is accessed.
+
+[maturity-levels]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/api_changes.md#alpha-beta-and-stable-versions
+[deprecation-policy]: https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/using-api/deprecation-policy/
+
+Below are some examples to consider, in addition to the aforementioned [maturity levels][maturity-levels].
+
+#### Alpha
+
+- Feature implemented behind a feature flag
+- Initial e2e tests completed and enabled
+
+#### Beta
+
+- Gather feedback from developers and surveys
+- Complete features A, B, C
+- Additional tests are in Testgrid and linked in KEP
+
+#### GA
+
+- N examples of real-world usage
+- N installs
+- More rigorous forms of testing—e.g., downgrade tests and scalability tests
+- Allowing time for feedback
+
+**Note:** Generally we also wait at least two releases between beta and
+GA/stable, because there's no opportunity for user feedback, or even bug reports,
+in back-to-back releases.
+
+**For non-optional features moving to GA, the graduation criteria must include
+[conformance tests].**
+
+[conformance tests]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/conformance-tests.md
+
+#### Deprecation
+
+- Announce deprecation and support policy of the existing flag
+- Two versions passed since introducing the functionality that deprecates the flag (to address version skew)
+- Address feedback on usage/changed behavior, provided on GitHub issues
+- Deprecate the flag
+-->
+
+### Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy
+
+<!--
+If applicable, how will the component be upgraded and downgraded? Make sure
+this is in the test plan.
+
+Consider the following in developing an upgrade/downgrade strategy for this
+enhancement:
+- What changes (in invocations, configurations, API use, etc.) is an existing
+  cluster required to make on upgrade, in order to maintain previous behavior?
+- What changes (in invocations, configurations, API use, etc.) is an existing
+  cluster required to make on upgrade, in order to make use of the enhancement?
+-->
+
+### Version Skew Strategy
+
+<!--
+If applicable, how will the component handle version skew with other
+components? What are the guarantees? Make sure this is in the test plan.
+
+Consider the following in developing a version skew strategy for this
+enhancement:
+- Does this enhancement involve coordinating behavior in the control plane and
+  in the kubelet? How does an n-2 kubelet without this feature available behave
+  when this feature is used?
+- Will any other components on the node change? For example, changes to CSI,
+  CRI or CNI may require updating that component before the kubelet.
+-->
+
+## Production Readiness Review Questionnaire
+
+<!--
+
+Production readiness reviews are intended to ensure that features merging into
+Kubernetes are observable, scalable and supportable; can be safely operated in
+production environments, and can be disabled or rolled back in the event they
+cause increased failures in production. See more in the PRR KEP at
+https://git.k8s.io/enhancements/keps/sig-architecture/1194-prod-readiness.
+
+The production readiness review questionnaire must be completed and approved
+for the KEP to move to `implementable` status and be included in the release.
+
+In some cases, the questions below should also have answers in `kep.yaml`. This
+is to enable automation to verify the presence of the review, and to reduce review
+burden and latency.
+
+The KEP must have a approver from the
+[`prod-readiness-approvers`](http://git.k8s.io/enhancements/OWNERS_ALIASES)
+team. Please reach out on the
+[#prod-readiness](https://kubernetes.slack.com/archives/CPNHUMN74) channel if
+you need any help or guidance.
+-->
+
+### Feature Enablement and Rollback
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting alpha to a release.
+-->
+
+###### How can this feature be enabled / disabled in a live cluster?
+
+<!--
+Pick one of these and delete the rest.
+-->
+
+- [ ] Feature gate (also fill in values in `kep.yaml`)
+  - Feature gate name:
+  - Components depending on the feature gate:
+- [ ] Other
+  - Describe the mechanism:
+  - Will enabling / disabling the feature require downtime of the control
+    plane?
+  - Will enabling / disabling the feature require downtime or reprovisioning
+    of a node? (Do not assume `Dynamic Kubelet Config` feature is enabled).
+
+###### Does enabling the feature change any default behavior?
+
+<!--
+Any change of default behavior may be surprising to users or break existing
+automations, so be extremely careful here.
+-->
+
+###### Can the feature be disabled once it has been enabled (i.e. can we roll back the enablement)?
+
+<!--
+Describe the consequences on existing workloads (e.g., if this is a runtime
+feature, can it break the existing applications?).
+
+NOTE: Also set `disable-supported` to `true` or `false` in `kep.yaml`.
+-->
+
+###### What happens if we reenable the feature if it was previously rolled back?
+
+###### Are there any tests for feature enablement/disablement?
+
+<!--
+The e2e framework does not currently support enabling or disabling feature
+gates. However, unit tests in each component dealing with managing data, created
+with and without the feature, are necessary. At the very least, think about
+conversion tests if API types are being modified.
+-->
+
+### Rollout, Upgrade and Rollback Planning
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
+-->
+
+###### How can a rollout or rollback fail? Can it impact already running workloads?
+
+<!--
+Try to be as paranoid as possible - e.g., what if some components will restart
+mid-rollout?
+
+Be sure to consider highly-available clusters, where, for example,
+feature flags will be enabled on some API servers and not others during the
+rollout. Similarly, consider large clusters and how enablement/disablement
+will rollout across nodes.
+-->
+N/A
+
+###### What specific metrics should inform a rollback?
+
+<!--
+What signals should users be paying attention to when the feature is young
+that might indicate a serious problem?
+-->
+N/A
+
+###### Were upgrade and rollback tested? Was the upgrade->downgrade->upgrade path tested?
+
+<!--
+Describe manual testing that was done and the outcomes.
+Longer term, we may want to require automated upgrade/rollback tests, but we
+are missing a bunch of machinery and tooling and can't do that now.
+-->
+N/A
+
+###### Is the rollout accompanied by any deprecations and/or removals of features, APIs, fields of API types, flags, etc.?
+
+<!--
+Even if applying deprecation policies, they may still surprise some users.
+-->
+N/A
+
+### Monitoring Requirements
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
+-->
+N/A
+
+###### How can an operator determine if the feature is in use by workloads?
+
+<!--
+Ideally, this should be a metric. Operations against the Kubernetes API (e.g.,
+checking if there are objects with field X set) may be a last resort. Avoid
+logs or events for this purpose.
+-->
+N/A
+
+###### How can someone using this feature know that it is working for their instance?
+
+<!--
+For instance, if this is a pod-related feature, it should be possible to determine if the feature is functioning properly
+for each individual pod.
+Pick one more of these and delete the rest.
+Please describe all items visible to end users below with sufficient detail so that they can verify correct enablement
+and operation of this feature.
+Recall that end users cannot usually observe component logs or access metrics.
+-->
+
+- [ ] Events
+  - Event Reason:
+- [ ] API .status
+  - Condition name:
+  - Other field:
+- [ ] Other (treat as last resort)
+  - Details:
+
+###### What are the reasonable SLOs (Service Level Objectives) for the enhancement?
+
+<!--
+This is your opportunity to define what "normal" quality of service looks like
+for a feature.
+
+It's impossible to provide comprehensive guidance, but at the very
+high level (needs more precise definitions) those may be things like:
+  - per-day percentage of API calls finishing with 5XX errors <= 1%
+  - 99% percentile over day of absolute value from (job creation time minus expected
+    job creation time) for cron job <= 10%
+  - 99.9% of /health requests per day finish with 200 code
+
+These goals will help you determine what you need to measure (SLIs) in the next
+question.
+-->
+
+###### What are the SLIs (Service Level Indicators) an operator can use to determine the health of the service?
+
+<!--
+Pick one more of these and delete the rest.
+-->
+
+- [ ] Metrics
+  - Metric name:
+  - [Optional] Aggregation method:
+  - Components exposing the metric:
+- [ ] Other (treat as last resort)
+  - Details:
+
+###### Are there any missing metrics that would be useful to have to improve observability of this feature?
+
+<!--
+Describe the metrics themselves and the reasons why they weren't added (e.g., cost,
+implementation difficulties, etc.).
+-->
+N/A
+
+### Dependencies
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
+-->
+N/A
+
+###### Does this feature depend on any specific services running in the cluster?
+
+<!--
+Think about both cluster-level services (e.g. metrics-server) as well
+as node-level agents (e.g. specific version of CRI). Focus on external or
+optional services that are needed. For example, if this feature depends on
+a cloud provider API, or upon an external software-defined storage or network
+control plane.
+
+For each of these, fill in the following—thinking about running existing user workloads
+and creating new ones, as well as about cluster-level services (e.g. DNS):
+  - [Dependency name]
+    - Usage description:
+      - Impact of its outage on the feature:
+      - Impact of its degraded performance or high-error rates on the feature:
+-->
+N/A
+
+### Scalability
+
+<!--
+For alpha, this section is encouraged: reviewers should consider these questions
+and attempt to answer them.
+
+For beta, this section is required: reviewers must answer these questions.
+
+For GA, this section is required: approvers should be able to confirm the
+previous answers based on experience in the field.
+-->
+N/A
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in any new API calls?
+
+<!--
+Describe them, providing:
+  - API call type (e.g. PATCH pods)
+  - estimated throughput
+  - originating component(s) (e.g. Kubelet, Feature-X-controller)
+Focusing mostly on:
+  - components listing and/or watching resources they didn't before
+  - API calls that may be triggered by changes of some Kubernetes resources
+    (e.g. update of object X triggers new updates of object Y)
+  - periodic API calls to reconcile state (e.g. periodic fetching state,
+    heartbeats, leader election, etc.)
+-->
+N/A
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in introducing new API types?
+
+<!--
+Describe them, providing:
+  - API type
+  - Supported number of objects per cluster
+  - Supported number of objects per namespace (for namespace-scoped objects)
+-->
+N/A
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in any new calls to the cloud provider?
+
+<!--
+Describe them, providing:
+  - Which API(s):
+  - Estimated increase:
+-->
+N/A
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in increasing size or count of the existing API objects?
+
+<!--
+Describe them, providing:
+  - API type(s):
+  - Estimated increase in size: (e.g., new annotation of size 32B)
+  - Estimated amount of new objects: (e.g., new Object X for every existing Pod)
+-->
+N/A
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in increasing time taken by any operations covered by existing SLIs/SLOs?
+
+<!--
+Look at the [existing SLIs/SLOs].
+
+Think about adding additional work or introducing new steps in between
+(e.g. need to do X to start a container), etc. Please describe the details.
+
+[existing SLIs/SLOs]: https://git.k8s.io/community/sig-scalability/slos/slos.md#kubernetes-slisslos
+-->
+N/A
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in non-negligible increase of resource usage (CPU, RAM, disk, IO, ...) in any components?
+
+<!--
+Things to keep in mind include: additional in-memory state, additional
+non-trivial computations, excessive access to disks (including increased log
+volume), significant amount of data sent and/or received over network, etc.
+This through this both in small and large cases, again with respect to the
+[supported limits].
+
+[supported limits]: https://git.k8s.io/community//sig-scalability/configs-and-limits/thresholds.md
+-->
+N/A
+
+### Troubleshooting
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
+
+The Troubleshooting section currently serves the `Playbook` role. We may consider
+splitting it into a dedicated `Playbook` document (potentially with some monitoring
+details). For now, we leave it here.
+-->
+
+###### How does this feature react if the API server and/or etcd is unavailable?
+
+###### What are other known failure modes?
+
+<!--
+For each of them, fill in the following information by copying the below template:
+  - [Failure mode brief description]
+    - Detection: How can it be detected via metrics? Stated another way:
+      how can an operator troubleshoot without logging into a master or worker node?
+    - Mitigations: What can be done to stop the bleeding, especially for already
+      running user workloads?
+    - Diagnostics: What are the useful log messages and their required logging
+      levels that could help debug the issue?
+      Not required until feature graduated to beta.
+    - Testing: Are there any tests for failure mode? If not, describe why.
+-->
+
+###### What steps should be taken if SLOs are not being met to determine the problem?
+
+## Implementation History
+
+- 2021-11-18 Initial Draft
+
+<!--
+Major milestones in the lifecycle of a KEP should be tracked in this section.
+Major milestones might include:
+- the `Summary` and `Motivation` sections being merged, signaling SIG acceptance
+- 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
+- when the KEP was retired or superseded
+-->
+
+## Drawbacks
+
+<!--
+Why should this KEP _not_ be implemented?
+-->
+N/A
+
+## Alternatives
+
+<!--
+What other approaches did you consider, and why did you rule them out? These do
+not need to be as detailed as the proposal, but should include enough
+information to express the idea and why it was not acceptable.
+-->
+N/A
+
+## Infrastructure Needed (Optional)
+
+<!--
+Use this section if you need things from the project/SIG. Examples include a
+new subproject, repos requested, or GitHub details. Listing these here allows a
+SIG to get the process for these resources started right away.
+-->
+N/A
diff --git a/keps/sig-release/2853-kubernetes-kubernetes-repository-branch-rename/kep.yaml b/keps/sig-release/2853-kubernetes-kubernetes-repository-branch-rename/kep.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..a83b8a786bb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/keps/sig-release/2853-kubernetes-kubernetes-repository-branch-rename/kep.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+title: Changing kubernetes/kubernetes default branch name to main
+kep-number: 2853
+authors:
+  - "@cpanato"
+owning-sig: sig-release
+participating-sigs:
+  - sig-release
+  - sig-security
+status: provisional
+creation-date: 2021-11-19
+reviewers:
+  - TBD
+approvers:
+  - TBD
+# status: provisional|implementable|implemented|deferred|rejected|withdrawn|replaced
+##### WARNING !!! ######
+# prr-approvers has been moved to its own location
+# You should create your own in keps/prod-readiness
+# Please make a copy of keps/prod-readiness/template/nnnn.yaml
+# to keps/prod-readiness/sig-xxxxx/00000.yaml (replace with kep number)
+#prr-approvers:
+
+#see-also:
+#  - "/keps/sig-aaa/1234-we-heard-you-like-keps"
+#  - "/keps/sig-bbb/2345-everyone-gets-a-kep"
+#replaces:
+#  - "/keps/sig-ccc/3456-replaced-kep"
+
+# The target maturity stage in the current dev cycle for this KEP.
+#stage: alpha|beta|stable
+
+# The most recent milestone for which work toward delivery of this KEP has been
+# done. This can be the current (upcoming) milestone, if it is being actively
+# worked on.
+latest-milestone: "v1.23"
+
+# The milestone at which this feature was, or is targeted to be, at each stage.
+milestone:
+#  alpha: "v1.19"
+#  beta: "v1.20"
+#  stable: "v1.22"
+
+# The following PRR answers are required at alpha release
+# List the feature gate name and the components for which it must be enabled
+#feature-gates:
+#  - name: MyFeature
+#    components:
+#      - kube-apiserver
+#      - kube-controller-manager
+#disable-supported: true
+
+# The following PRR answers are required at beta release
+#metrics:
+#  - my_feature_metric
\ No newline at end of file

From 53bfb98d340f623c5e8968b64f94c8f3fcfdd8ad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Carlos Panato <ctadeu@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 12:55:58 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 2/4] update based on feedback

Signed-off-by: Carlos Panato <ctadeu@gmail.com>
---
 .../README.md                                 | 27 +++++++++++++++----
 .../kep.yaml                                  |  3 +++
 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/keps/sig-release/2853-kubernetes-kubernetes-repository-branch-rename/README.md b/keps/sig-release/2853-kubernetes-kubernetes-repository-branch-rename/README.md
index 3cce2e71b94..3a4671c47c7 100644
--- a/keps/sig-release/2853-kubernetes-kubernetes-repository-branch-rename/README.md
+++ b/keps/sig-release/2853-kubernetes-kubernetes-repository-branch-rename/README.md
@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ If none of those approvers are still appropriate, then changes to that list
 should be approved by the remaining approvers and/or the owning SIG (or
 SIG Architecture for cross-cutting KEPs).
 -->
-# KEP-NNNN: Your short, descriptive title
+# KEP-2853: Kubernetes repository branch rename
 
 <!--
 This is the title of your KEP. Keep it short, simple, and descriptive. A good
@@ -89,6 +89,7 @@ tags, and then generate with `hack/update-toc.sh`.
   - [Notes/Constraints/Caveats (Optional)](#notesconstraintscaveats-optional)
   - [Risks and Mitigations](#risks-and-mitigations)
 - [Design Details](#design-details)
+    - [Survey Questions](#survey-questions)
   - [Test Plan](#test-plan)
   - [Graduation Criteria](#graduation-criteria)
   - [Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy](#upgrade--downgrade-strategy)
@@ -170,7 +171,7 @@ updates.
 -->
 
 Many communities, both on GitHub and in the wider Git community, are considering renaming the default branch name of their repository from `master`. The Kubernetes GitHub repositories is gradually renaming the default branch of our own repositories from `master` to `main`.
-This KEP is to we rename the branch for the main repository in the Kubernetes community.
+This KEP proposes that we rename the branch for the principal code repository in the Kubernetes project.
 
 ## Motivation
 
@@ -218,9 +219,10 @@ implementation. What is the desired outcome and how do we measure success?.
 The "Design Details" section below is for the real
 nitty-gritty.
 -->
-- The change can be applied in the middle of December 2021. This is a good time because we will have less activity due to the Christmas and new year celebrations
-- Announce the change in the kubernetes-dev and kubernetes-announcement mailing list and maybe in a blog post. As well as use Twitter and other social media to announce.
-- Change all open Pull Requests to the `Draft mode` with that when we rename the branch, the tests will not be triggered and will avoid a massive queue in the CI infrastructure.
+- We aim to make the change during the start of v1.25 release (spring 2022).
+- Perform a Survey to gather information on downstream consumers and how this might affects their workflow. See [Survey Questions](#survey-questions).
+- Announce the change in the kubernetes-dev and kubernetes-announcement mailing list and in a blog post. As well as use Twitter and other social media to announce.
+- Change all open Pull Requests to `Draft mode` (so that when we rename the branch, tests will not be triggered, and we avoid a massive queue in the CI infrastructure).
 - Update all Prow jobs that use `kubernetes/kubernetes` and use the `master` branch to listen to the `main` branch as well
 - Follow the guide on https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/github-management/default-branch-migration.md to rename the repository branch name.
 - After the branch rename, announce that in the mailing list
@@ -244,6 +246,10 @@ 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.
 -->
+As a contributor, I have to remember to use `master` when working with repositories that
+haven't yet switched.
+Switching k/k to `main` will reduce the burden slightly.
+
 
 #### Story 1
 
@@ -280,6 +286,13 @@ change are understandable. This may include API specs (though not always
 required) or even code snippets. If there's any ambiguity about HOW your
 proposal will be implemented, this is the place to discuss them.
 -->
+#### Survey Questions
+
+The survey we will send out to gether information from the downstream consumer will have the following questions:
+
+1. On which companies behalf do you submit the response?
+2. Would a kubernetes/kubernetes branch rename affect your downstream workflow? If yes, how?
+3. How much time would you need in advance before the migration happens?
 
 ### Test Plan
 
@@ -455,6 +468,10 @@ feature, can it break the existing applications?).
 NOTE: Also set `disable-supported` to `true` or `false` in `kep.yaml`.
 -->
 
+Once we rename the branch from `master` to `main` GitHub offers the follow redirections.
+We don't have plans to switch back to the original name once that is renamed, and issues, if that appears,
+will be handled as an exception and as high priority.
+
 ###### What happens if we reenable the feature if it was previously rolled back?
 
 ###### Are there any tests for feature enablement/disablement?
diff --git a/keps/sig-release/2853-kubernetes-kubernetes-repository-branch-rename/kep.yaml b/keps/sig-release/2853-kubernetes-kubernetes-repository-branch-rename/kep.yaml
index a83b8a786bb..b19dfa432f2 100644
--- a/keps/sig-release/2853-kubernetes-kubernetes-repository-branch-rename/kep.yaml
+++ b/keps/sig-release/2853-kubernetes-kubernetes-repository-branch-rename/kep.yaml
@@ -6,6 +6,9 @@ owning-sig: sig-release
 participating-sigs:
   - sig-release
   - sig-security
+  - sig-testing
+  - sig-k8s-infra
+  - sig-contribex
 status: provisional
 creation-date: 2021-11-19
 reviewers:

From 6898684b527c7003a0ae9d82914e64d2d38fc071 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Carlos Panato <ctadeu@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2022 11:12:56 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 3/4] update based on feedback round 2

Signed-off-by: Carlos Panato <ctadeu@gmail.com>
---
 .../README.md                                 | 206 +-----------------
 .../kep.yaml                                  |  17 +-
 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 208 deletions(-)

diff --git a/keps/sig-release/2853-kubernetes-kubernetes-repository-branch-rename/README.md b/keps/sig-release/2853-kubernetes-kubernetes-repository-branch-rename/README.md
index 3a4671c47c7..dda553f286d 100644
--- a/keps/sig-release/2853-kubernetes-kubernetes-repository-branch-rename/README.md
+++ b/keps/sig-release/2853-kubernetes-kubernetes-repository-branch-rename/README.md
@@ -83,19 +83,9 @@ tags, and then generate with `hack/update-toc.sh`.
   - [Goals](#goals)
   - [Non-Goals](#non-goals)
 - [Proposal](#proposal)
-  - [User Stories (Optional)](#user-stories-optional)
-    - [Story 1](#story-1)
-    - [Story 2](#story-2)
-  - [Notes/Constraints/Caveats (Optional)](#notesconstraintscaveats-optional)
   - [Risks and Mitigations](#risks-and-mitigations)
-- [Design Details](#design-details)
     - [Survey Questions](#survey-questions)
-  - [Test Plan](#test-plan)
   - [Graduation Criteria](#graduation-criteria)
-  - [Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy](#upgrade--downgrade-strategy)
-  - [Version Skew Strategy](#version-skew-strategy)
-- [Production Readiness Review Questionnaire](#production-readiness-review-questionnaire)
-  - [Feature Enablement and Rollback](#feature-enablement-and-rollback)
   - [Rollout, Upgrade and Rollback Planning](#rollout-upgrade-and-rollback-planning)
   - [Monitoring Requirements](#monitoring-requirements)
   - [Dependencies](#dependencies)
@@ -238,54 +228,16 @@ References:
 
 - https://github.com/github/renaming
 
-### User Stories (Optional)
-
-<!--
-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.
--->
-As a contributor, I have to remember to use `master` when working with repositories that
-haven't yet switched.
-Switching k/k to `main` will reduce the burden slightly.
-
-
-#### Story 1
-
-#### Story 2
-
-### Notes/Constraints/Caveats (Optional)
-
-<!--
-What are the caveats to the proposal?
-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 relate.
--->
-
 ### Risks and Mitigations
 
-<!--
-What are the risks of this proposal, and how do we mitigate? Think broadly.
-For example, consider both security and how this will impact the larger
-Kubernetes ecosystem.
+- **Risk:** The branch rename may break downstream consumers
 
-How will security be reviewed, and by whom?
+  **Mitigations:**
 
-How will UX be reviewed, and by whom?
-
-Consider including folks who also work outside the SIG or subproject.
--->
+  - Send out a survey to collect feedback and desire timeframe for the change
+  - Notify the community (via email k-dev and social media) when we plan the schedule and when it is approaching the change
 
-## Design Details
 
-<!--
-This section should contain enough information that the specifics of your
-change are understandable. This may include API specs (though not always
-required) or even code snippets. If there's any ambiguity about HOW your
-proposal will be implemented, this is the place to discuss them.
--->
 #### Survey Questions
 
 The survey we will send out to gether information from the downstream consumer will have the following questions:
@@ -294,27 +246,6 @@ The survey we will send out to gether information from the downstream consumer w
 2. Would a kubernetes/kubernetes branch rename affect your downstream workflow? If yes, how?
 3. How much time would you need in advance before the migration happens?
 
-### Test Plan
-
-<!--
-**Note:** *Not required until targeted at a release.*
-
-Consider the following in developing a test plan for this enhancement:
-- Will there be e2e and integration tests, in addition to unit tests?
-- How will it be tested in isolation vs with other components?
-
-No need to outline all of the test cases, just the general strategy. Anything
-that would count as tricky in the implementation, and anything particularly
-challenging to test, should be called out.
-
-All code is expected to have adequate tests (eventually with coverage
-expectations). Please adhere to the [Kubernetes testing guidelines][testing-guidelines]
-when drafting this test plan.
-
-[testing-guidelines]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-testing/testing.md
--->
-N/A
-
 ### Graduation Criteria
 
 <!--
@@ -377,81 +308,6 @@ in back-to-back releases.
 - Deprecate the flag
 -->
 
-### Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy
-
-<!--
-If applicable, how will the component be upgraded and downgraded? Make sure
-this is in the test plan.
-
-Consider the following in developing an upgrade/downgrade strategy for this
-enhancement:
-- What changes (in invocations, configurations, API use, etc.) is an existing
-  cluster required to make on upgrade, in order to maintain previous behavior?
-- What changes (in invocations, configurations, API use, etc.) is an existing
-  cluster required to make on upgrade, in order to make use of the enhancement?
--->
-
-### Version Skew Strategy
-
-<!--
-If applicable, how will the component handle version skew with other
-components? What are the guarantees? Make sure this is in the test plan.
-
-Consider the following in developing a version skew strategy for this
-enhancement:
-- Does this enhancement involve coordinating behavior in the control plane and
-  in the kubelet? How does an n-2 kubelet without this feature available behave
-  when this feature is used?
-- Will any other components on the node change? For example, changes to CSI,
-  CRI or CNI may require updating that component before the kubelet.
--->
-
-## Production Readiness Review Questionnaire
-
-<!--
-
-Production readiness reviews are intended to ensure that features merging into
-Kubernetes are observable, scalable and supportable; can be safely operated in
-production environments, and can be disabled or rolled back in the event they
-cause increased failures in production. See more in the PRR KEP at
-https://git.k8s.io/enhancements/keps/sig-architecture/1194-prod-readiness.
-
-The production readiness review questionnaire must be completed and approved
-for the KEP to move to `implementable` status and be included in the release.
-
-In some cases, the questions below should also have answers in `kep.yaml`. This
-is to enable automation to verify the presence of the review, and to reduce review
-burden and latency.
-
-The KEP must have a approver from the
-[`prod-readiness-approvers`](http://git.k8s.io/enhancements/OWNERS_ALIASES)
-team. Please reach out on the
-[#prod-readiness](https://kubernetes.slack.com/archives/CPNHUMN74) channel if
-you need any help or guidance.
--->
-
-### Feature Enablement and Rollback
-
-<!--
-This section must be completed when targeting alpha to a release.
--->
-
-###### How can this feature be enabled / disabled in a live cluster?
-
-<!--
-Pick one of these and delete the rest.
--->
-
-- [ ] Feature gate (also fill in values in `kep.yaml`)
-  - Feature gate name:
-  - Components depending on the feature gate:
-- [ ] Other
-  - Describe the mechanism:
-  - Will enabling / disabling the feature require downtime of the control
-    plane?
-  - Will enabling / disabling the feature require downtime or reprovisioning
-    of a node? (Do not assume `Dynamic Kubelet Config` feature is enabled).
-
 ###### Does enabling the feature change any default behavior?
 
 <!--
@@ -485,9 +341,7 @@ conversion tests if API types are being modified.
 
 ### Rollout, Upgrade and Rollback Planning
 
-<!--
-This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
--->
+As soon we rename the branch we do not have plans to rollback, but instead we will fix any possible issue right away.
 
 ###### How can a rollout or rollback fail? Can it impact already running workloads?
 
@@ -542,55 +396,6 @@ logs or events for this purpose.
 -->
 N/A
 
-###### How can someone using this feature know that it is working for their instance?
-
-<!--
-For instance, if this is a pod-related feature, it should be possible to determine if the feature is functioning properly
-for each individual pod.
-Pick one more of these and delete the rest.
-Please describe all items visible to end users below with sufficient detail so that they can verify correct enablement
-and operation of this feature.
-Recall that end users cannot usually observe component logs or access metrics.
--->
-
-- [ ] Events
-  - Event Reason:
-- [ ] API .status
-  - Condition name:
-  - Other field:
-- [ ] Other (treat as last resort)
-  - Details:
-
-###### What are the reasonable SLOs (Service Level Objectives) for the enhancement?
-
-<!--
-This is your opportunity to define what "normal" quality of service looks like
-for a feature.
-
-It's impossible to provide comprehensive guidance, but at the very
-high level (needs more precise definitions) those may be things like:
-  - per-day percentage of API calls finishing with 5XX errors <= 1%
-  - 99% percentile over day of absolute value from (job creation time minus expected
-    job creation time) for cron job <= 10%
-  - 99.9% of /health requests per day finish with 200 code
-
-These goals will help you determine what you need to measure (SLIs) in the next
-question.
--->
-
-###### What are the SLIs (Service Level Indicators) an operator can use to determine the health of the service?
-
-<!--
-Pick one more of these and delete the rest.
--->
-
-- [ ] Metrics
-  - Metric name:
-  - [Optional] Aggregation method:
-  - Components exposing the metric:
-- [ ] Other (treat as last resort)
-  - Details:
-
 ###### Are there any missing metrics that would be useful to have to improve observability of this feature?
 
 <!--
@@ -739,6 +544,7 @@ For each of them, fill in the following information by copying the below templat
 ## Implementation History
 
 - 2021-11-18 Initial Draft
+- 2022-02-09 Updates based on review/feedback
 
 <!--
 Major milestones in the lifecycle of a KEP should be tracked in this section.
diff --git a/keps/sig-release/2853-kubernetes-kubernetes-repository-branch-rename/kep.yaml b/keps/sig-release/2853-kubernetes-kubernetes-repository-branch-rename/kep.yaml
index b19dfa432f2..7fa36ece862 100644
--- a/keps/sig-release/2853-kubernetes-kubernetes-repository-branch-rename/kep.yaml
+++ b/keps/sig-release/2853-kubernetes-kubernetes-repository-branch-rename/kep.yaml
@@ -9,13 +9,16 @@ participating-sigs:
   - sig-testing
   - sig-k8s-infra
   - sig-contribex
-status: provisional
+
 creation-date: 2021-11-19
 reviewers:
-  - TBD
+  - "@saschagrunert"
+  - "@justaugustus"
 approvers:
-  - TBD
-# status: provisional|implementable|implemented|deferred|rejected|withdrawn|replaced
+  - "@saschagrunert"
+  - "@justaugustus"
+
+status: provisional
 ##### WARNING !!! ######
 # prr-approvers has been moved to its own location
 # You should create your own in keps/prod-readiness
@@ -35,13 +38,11 @@ approvers:
 # The most recent milestone for which work toward delivery of this KEP has been
 # done. This can be the current (upcoming) milestone, if it is being actively
 # worked on.
-latest-milestone: "v1.23"
+latest-milestone: "v1.24"
 
 # The milestone at which this feature was, or is targeted to be, at each stage.
 milestone:
-#  alpha: "v1.19"
-#  beta: "v1.20"
-#  stable: "v1.22"
+  stable: "v1.25"
 
 # The following PRR answers are required at alpha release
 # List the feature gate name and the components for which it must be enabled

From 7be03bd7cdf1e082f663f6e82827d2b195ab7fc8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Carlos Panato <ctadeu@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2022 14:13:54 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 4/4] update based on feedback round 3

Signed-off-by: Carlos Panato <ctadeu@gmail.com>
---
 .../README.md                                                     | 0
 .../kep.yaml                                                      | 0
 2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
 rename keps/sig-release/{2853-kubernetes-kubernetes-repository-branch-rename => 2853-k-core-branch-rename}/README.md (100%)
 rename keps/sig-release/{2853-kubernetes-kubernetes-repository-branch-rename => 2853-k-core-branch-rename}/kep.yaml (100%)

diff --git a/keps/sig-release/2853-kubernetes-kubernetes-repository-branch-rename/README.md b/keps/sig-release/2853-k-core-branch-rename/README.md
similarity index 100%
rename from keps/sig-release/2853-kubernetes-kubernetes-repository-branch-rename/README.md
rename to keps/sig-release/2853-k-core-branch-rename/README.md
diff --git a/keps/sig-release/2853-kubernetes-kubernetes-repository-branch-rename/kep.yaml b/keps/sig-release/2853-k-core-branch-rename/kep.yaml
similarity index 100%
rename from keps/sig-release/2853-kubernetes-kubernetes-repository-branch-rename/kep.yaml
rename to keps/sig-release/2853-k-core-branch-rename/kep.yaml