From 65415eb812434d9bfbe2a7cfaed36d40e10f36d2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Vincent Demeester Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 12:49:27 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Taking latest reviews into account :) - Adding some examples of not requiring a TEP - typos and work fixes Signed-off-by: Vincent Demeester --- ...001-tekton-enhancement-proposal-process.md | 35 ++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/teps/0001-tekton-enhancement-proposal-process.md b/teps/0001-tekton-enhancement-proposal-process.md index f46e4f617..667728eae 100644 --- a/teps/0001-tekton-enhancement-proposal-process.md +++ b/teps/0001-tekton-enhancement-proposal-process.md @@ -12,8 +12,6 @@ status: proposed ## Table of Contents -**Table of Contents** - - [Summary](#summary) - [Motivation](#motivation) - [Stewardship](#stewardship) @@ -22,15 +20,13 @@ status: proposed - [TEP Template](#tep-template) - [TEP Metadata](#tep-metadata) - [TEP Workflow](#tep-workflow) - - [Git and GitHub Implementation](#git-and-github-implementation) + - [Git Implementation](#git-implementation) - [Prior Art](#prior-art) - [Examples](#examples) - [Share Task and Pipeline as OCI artifact](#share-task-and-pipeline-as-oci-artifact) - [PipelineResource re-design](#pipelineresource-re-design) - [Drawbacks](#drawbacks) -- [Alternatives](#alternatives) - [Unresolved Questions](#unresolved-questions) - @@ -72,7 +68,7 @@ with the community (during Working groups, on Slack, GitHub, …). **This process acts as a requirement when a design docs is ready to be implemented or integrated in the `tektoncd` projects**. In other words, -a change that impact other `tektoncd` projects or users cannot be +a change that impacts other `tektoncd` projects or users cannot be merged if there is no `TEP` associated with it. Bug fixes and small changes like refactoring that do not affect the APIs (CRDs, REST APIs) are not concerned by this. Fixing the behaviour of a malfunctioning @@ -196,6 +192,19 @@ and could benefit from a TEP: - Local-to-Tekton feature on `tektoncd/cli` (aka use local source to execute a Pipeline in the cluster) +Finally, let's take some examples of changes in `tektoncd/pipeline` +that would, _most likely_ not require a TEP. + +- Propagate annotations from Conditions to TaskRuns/Pods: + [tektoncd/pipeline#2608](https://github.com/tektoncd/pipeline/issues/2608) +- Improvments on Pipeline cancel: + [tektoncd/pipeline#2543](https://github.com/tektoncd/pipeline/issues/2543) +- Add variable substitution for PVC name: + [tektoncd/pipeline#2506](https://github.com/tektoncd/pipeline/issues/2506) +- Emit events when we fail to update the taskrun: + [tektoncd/pipeline#2526](https://github.com/tektoncd/pipeline/issues/2526) + + Project creations *or* project promotion from the experimental project would also fall under the TEP process, deprecating the current [project @@ -207,7 +216,7 @@ requirements](https://github.com/tektoncd/community/blob/master/process.md#proje ### TEP Template The template for a TEP is precisely defined -[here](YYYYMMDD-tep-template.md) +[here](NNNN-tep-template/README.md) For example, the TEP template used to track API changes will likely have different subsections than the template for proposing @@ -285,7 +294,7 @@ any more discussion and got approved as it. See [Examples](#examples) to see examples of TEP workflow on use cases. -### Git and GitHub Implementation +### Git Implementation TEPs are checked into the community repo under the `/teps` directory. @@ -298,7 +307,7 @@ submission if the PR is likely to be uncontested and merged quickly. ### Prior Art -The TEP process as proposed was essentially stolen from the +The TEP process as proposed was essentially adapted from the [Kubernetes KEP process][], which itself is essentially stolen from the [Rust RFC process][] which itself seems to be very similar to the [Python PEP process][] @@ -350,12 +359,12 @@ Catalog](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zUVrIbGZh2R9dawKQ9Hm1Cx3GevKIfOcRO3 through alternative means than in clusters (OCI image is one, using Git or an HTTP url are others) - The next action are : + The next actions are : - Create a new TEP on support for referencing Task and Pipeline. As before, the TEP can be first discussed during Working group and refined in Google Docs before being proposed as a TEP. - Update the current TEP to define the spec (same thing as above - applies). A name is choosed for those : Tekton Bundles. + applies). A name is choosed for those: Tekton Bundles. - Create a new TEP on implementing Tekton Bundles in tektoncd projects (`pipeline` and `cli`) 5. The current TEP, defining the spec, is *approved* and marked as @@ -412,8 +421,8 @@ accurately the following: - Mark this TEP as withdrawn, we acknoledge it is not the way to go. When marking this as `withdrawn`, add the reason why. - Conduct experiment on not using PipelineResource - - Act that the `PipelineResource` needs a full re-design (and thus - removing it from the beta API for now) + - Acknowledge that the `PipelineResource` needs a full re-design + (and thus removing it from the beta API for now) 4. From the conducted experiment on "a life without PipelineResource", two concept are being discussed: - Workspace : to share data between tasks