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

Redesign Event API #383

Open
gmarek opened this issue Aug 4, 2017 · 63 comments

Comments

@gmarek
Copy link
Member

commented Aug 4, 2017

Feature Description

  • One-line feature description (can be used as a release note): Add more structure to Event API and change deduplication logic so Events won't overload the cluster
  • Primary contact (assignee): @gmarek
  • Responsible SIGs: scalability
  • KEP: 20190131-event-series
  • Design proposal link (community repo): design goolge doc - design discussions in github are too painful for me
  • Reviewer(s) - (for LGTM) recommend having 2+ reviewers (at least one from code-area OWNERS file) agreed to review. Reviewers from multiple companies preferred: @timothysc @wojtek-t
  • Approver (likely from SIG/area to which feature belongs): @bgrant0607 @thockin @countspongebob
  • Feature target (which target equals to which milestone):
    • Beta release target (1.8), disabled by default until we migrate our components
@idvoretskyi

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Aug 9, 2017

@gmarek the feature submission deadline has passed (Aug 1). Please, submit a feature exception (https://github.com/kubernetes/features/blob/master/EXCEPTIONS.md) to have this feature present in 1.8 release.

@jdumars

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Aug 16, 2017

@gmarek as you probably saw in the other feature comments, I am trying to understand how some features didn't get into the features repo before the deadline. This is only for the purpose of improving our release process and notifications for next time, not for blaming or pointing fingers. We're also trying to understand if there was prior work done on the feature, or if it was created after the freeze date.

@gmarek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Aug 16, 2017

Yup, there's quite some work done on this, with (big) design doc shared with kubernetes-dev and in-depth discussion on SIG scale. For this we'll probably make it disabled by default, as there's not enough time to let it soak. Is it possible to have a 'quiet' release for things like that? @jdumars

@jdumars

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Aug 16, 2017

@gmarek that's an interesting question. My personal opinion is to provide as much transparency as possible, so we maintain a bond of trust with our user community. Being as you get to write the release notes, you can add something short there about it. And, thanks for clarifying the feature itself.

@countspongebob

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Aug 16, 2017

Personal perspective on this, largely repeating comments I've made before. But, as this is a case in point...

  • SIG PM involvement and feature submissions have been functionally optional, with SIG PM not empowered to actually keep things out of a release.
  • There is continued confusion over what is a feature. I echo @jbeda in calling for these to be renamed "efforts". The implication would be 100% coverage, but see my first point.

We had a discussion in SIG Scalability about especially point #2 with no clear resolution. A few of lobbied @gmarek to do the feature submission not withstanding the points above and he agreed to to do.

@idvoretskyi

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Aug 18, 2017

@jdumars @countspongebob @gmarek the main point to discuss here - is about the formal dates and deadlines, and what will happen if one will avoid them. We have agreed that the feature freeze for 1.8 (https://github.com/kubernetes/features/blob/master/release-1.8/release-1.8.md) is August 1, so all the features have to be submitted to the features repo before this date.

If people, responsible for the release and the overall community feel that this deadline is not mandatory, it can be discussed and removed. From our (PM group) standpoint, the feature freeze is necessary from the high-level point of view (including planning of the roadmap, marketing activities, etc.). But if there are some reasons why we shouldn't have a feature freeze, again, let's discuss them.

PS. It has been a long-discussed question in the community, even before SIG-PM was established. Now it might be a good time to solve it.

@idvoretskyi

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Aug 18, 2017

@countspongebob

SIG PM involvement and feature submissions have been functionally optional, with SIG PM not empowered to actually keep things out of a release.

SIG PM is not empowered, but release team is. SIG PM is responsible for managing the features on the high level, so we would be able to provide release team with the clearest and transparent information about the feature.

@gmarek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Aug 18, 2017

@idvoretskyi - IIUC the exception process is a SIG-PM thing. I haven't heard complains from release team about developing features that are not enabled and don't impact current behavior (plus it's highly unlikely it will be finished in 1.8 timeframe). I'm happy to discuss it as soon as any doubts appear.

Please correct me if I'm wrong - the goal is to track features that will ship in a current release, not the development process that may span across multiple releases. If I'm not mistaken this means that "features" (for lack of the better word) that are disabled and not ready to be enabled don't need to be tracked, right?

@gmarek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Aug 18, 2017

Also note that there's not clear what constitutes a 'feature' and where's the border between new feature and 'improvement' that doesn't need a feature repo issue.

Slight OT, but related to shipping features - it was widely acknowledged that @kubernetes/sig-scalability-misc have power to block features which cause performance degradation bad enough to make Kubernetes clusters break our performance SLOs (this is of course decided together with the release team). This is decided close to the release dates, when scale tests on a given release are finished. I'm saying this to make clear that feature repo can't be treated as source of truth about features that will ship in a given release.

@idvoretskyi

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Oct 2, 2017

@gmarek any plans to continue development of this item for 1.9?

@idvoretskyi idvoretskyi added this to the next-milestone milestone Oct 2, 2017

@bgrant0607

This comment has been minimized.

@idvoretskyi

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Oct 2, 2017

@bgrant0607 perfect. Updating the milestone.

@idvoretskyi idvoretskyi modified the milestones: next-milestone, 1.9 Oct 2, 2017

@gmarek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Oct 3, 2017

PR is also ready for review (not started because of 1.8): kubernetes/kubernetes#49112

@idvoretskyi

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Nov 13, 2017

@gmarek can you confirm that it's alpha for 1.9?

@zacharysarah

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Nov 22, 2017

@gmarek 👋 Please indicate in the 1.9 feature tracking board
whether this feature needs documentation. If yes, please open a PR and add a link to the tracking spreadsheet. Thanks in advance!

@claurence claurence removed this from the v1.14 milestone Feb 26, 2019

@claurence claurence added tracked/no and removed tracked/yes labels Feb 26, 2019

@kacole2

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Apr 12, 2019

Hello @wojtek-t @yastij , I'm the Enhancement Lead for 1.15. Is this feature going to be graduating alpha/beta/stable stages in 1.15? Please let me know so it can be tracked properly and added to the spreadsheet.

Once coding begins, please list all relevant k/k PRs in this issue so they can be tracked properly.

@wojtek-t

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Apr 15, 2019

Yes - we would like to push it in 1.15 - we will keep it up-to-date.

@justaugustus

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Apr 28, 2019

/assign @gmarek

@yastij

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Apr 28, 2019

/assign @wojtek-t @yastij

As we’re working on this

@makoscafee

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented May 10, 2019

Hey, @gmarek @yastij @wojtek-t 👋 I'm the v1.15 docs Lead.
Does this enhancement require any new docs (or modifications)?

Just a friendly reminder we're looking for a PR against k/website (branch dev-1.15) due by Thursday, May 30th. It would be great if it's the start of the full documentation, but even a placeholder PR is acceptable. Let me know if you have any questions

@kacole2

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented May 28, 2019

Hi @gmarek @yastij @wojtek-t. Code Freeze is Thursday, May 30th 2019 @ EOD PST. All enhancements going into the release must be code-complete, including tests, and have docs PRs open.

Please list all current k/k PRs so they can be tracked going into freeze. If the PRs aren't merged by freeze, this feature will slip for the 1.15 release cycle. Only release-blocking issues and PRs will be allowed in the milestone.

If you know this will slip, please reply back and let us know. Thanks!

@wojtek-t

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented May 29, 2019

@kacole2 - yes, we're aware of the deadline.
The code (including tests) is almost ready. From not-yet merged PRs we need:
kubernetes/kubernetes#78482 [already approved]
kubernetes/kubernetes#78037 [already approved]
kubernetes/kubernetes#78486
kubernetes/kubernetes#78447

@yastij is working on the last 2 to address comments, we hope to have the remaining two approved pretty soon too

@makoscafee

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented May 31, 2019

Hi @wojtek-t will this need any docs modification? if yes would be nice to have a placeholder PR before code freeze too.

@yastij

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented May 31, 2019

@makoscafee - This enhancement doesn't need docs

@kacole2

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 6, 2019

@wojtek-t I see that kubernetes/kubernetes#78447 wasn't merged before freeze. Is this going to prohibit going Alpha in 1.15?

@yastij

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 6, 2019

@kacole2 - kubernetes/kubernetes#78447 uses the feature and isn't part of the implementation.

The feature has tests and integration tests, so this shouldn't be a blocker.

@kacole2

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jul 8, 2019

Hi @yastij , I'm the 1.16 Enhancement Lead. Is this feature going to be graduating alpha/beta/stable stages in 1.16? Please let me know so it can be added to the 1.16 Tracking Spreadsheet. If not's graduating, I will remove it from the milestone and change the tracked label.

Once coding begins or if it already has, please list all relevant k/k PRs in this issue so they can be tracked properly.

Milestone dates are Enhancement Freeze 7/30 and Code Freeze 8/29.

Thank you.

@wojtek-t

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jul 9, 2019

No - we don't assume any graduation this cycle.
We would like to use new events API (in beta) in couple places in the codebase to prove it before we graduate to GA.
Tentative plan is to graduate in 1.17.

@kacole2 kacole2 removed this from the v1.15 milestone Jul 9, 2019

@kacole2 kacole2 added tracked/no and removed tracked/yes labels Jul 9, 2019

@wojtek-t

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Aug 2, 2019

@deads2k - I don't think this was supposed to be closed :)

@wojtek-t wojtek-t reopened this Aug 2, 2019

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.