Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Split up core ksonnet package into separate packages #42

Closed
jlewi opened this issue Dec 20, 2017 · 11 comments · Fixed by #2107
Closed

Split up core ksonnet package into separate packages #42

jlewi opened this issue Dec 20, 2017 · 11 comments · Fixed by #2107
Labels
area/ksonnet Bugs related to ksonnet and prototypes area/0.4.0 priority/p0
Projects
Milestone

Comments

@jlewi
Copy link
Contributor

jlewi commented Dec 20, 2017

The core package consists of

  • JupyterHub
  • TfJob CRD
  • NFS Provisioner

These should probably each be their own package. The core component could then depend on these packages.

The reason we didn't do this in the initial PR #36 was because ksonnet doesn't yet support having packages depend on other packages see ksonnet/ksonnet#231

@jlewi jlewi added priority/p1 release/0.4.0 area/ksonnet Bugs related to ksonnet and prototypes labels Aug 31, 2018
@jlewi
Copy link
Contributor Author

jlewi commented Aug 31, 2018

Adding this to 0.4.0 .

In 0.4.0 we should try to rationalize our package structure and otherwise overhaul the organization of our ksonnet registry (e.g. #1454)

@jbottum
Copy link
Contributor

jbottum commented Sep 30, 2018

/area 0.4.0

@chrisheecho
Copy link

/priority p0

@chrisheecho
Copy link

/remove-priority p1

@jlewi jlewi added this to To do in 0.4.0 via automation Oct 29, 2018
@jlewi
Copy link
Contributor Author

jlewi commented Oct 29, 2018

I think the next step would be to come up with an initial proposal for the refactor.

@jlewi
Copy link
Contributor Author

jlewi commented Oct 29, 2018

I filed the more specific issues #1885 and #1886
I think we can start with that and go from there.

@carmine carmine added this to the 0.4.0 milestone Nov 6, 2018
@jlewi jlewi moved this from To do to Kubeflow infra improvement - Doc/stablization in 0.4.0 Nov 26, 2018
@jlewi
Copy link
Contributor Author

jlewi commented Nov 26, 2018

Here's a list of the components still in the core package

ambassador
centraldashboard
cert-manager
cloud-endpoints
google-cloud-server
iap
prometheus
spartakus

So we basically have 2 types of components left

  1. Common components
  2. GCP specific components.

The GCP specific components should probably be moved into their own package.

For common components we have a couple options

  1. Rename "core" to "common" or maybe "misc"

    • The main reason for doing this is because "core" is a bit overloaded. It conveys a false sense that the components are more important than the others but that's not really true
  2. We could try to come up with more specific packages to organize things in e.g networking or monitoring.

@pdmack @kkasravi @ashahba WDYT?

@jlewi
Copy link
Contributor Author

jlewi commented Dec 17, 2018

I think the only remaining item is to rename core. I vote renaming it to common.

@pdmack
Copy link
Member

pdmack commented Dec 17, 2018

"common" to me implies general utility for other components, like logging. "core" is not bad IMHO if it's basically the content of an MVP.

My $0.02.

@kkasravi
Copy link
Contributor

I'll do the core -> common PR. @jlewi @pdmack if you agree on a better name let me know

@kkasravi
Copy link
Contributor

one argument for common is kubeflow/core/util.libsonnet which is used by other components.

0.4.0 automation moved this from Kubeflow infra improvement - Doc/stablization to Done Dec 21, 2018
kimwnasptd pushed a commit to arrikto/kubeflow that referenced this issue Mar 5, 2019
…ogram. (kubeflow#42)

* Create a google group for folks at the Insight Data Scient Fellows program.

* Some folks will be kicking the tires on Kubeflow.

* Add jeremy@lewi.us to test IAP via googlegroups. Will remove in follow on PR.

* Define the IAM policy file.

* Update README
yanniszark pushed a commit to arrikto/kubeflow that referenced this issue Nov 1, 2019
* snapshot

* first pass on pipeline refactoring

* fixes for naming of pv, pvc and references in deployment

* fix for pipelines-viewer, minioPd
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area/ksonnet Bugs related to ksonnet and prototypes area/0.4.0 priority/p0
Projects
No open projects
0.4.0
  
Done
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

8 participants