|
| 1 | +--- |
| 2 | +title: Neat-Enhancement-Idea |
| 3 | +authors: |
| 4 | + - "@janedoe" |
| 5 | +reviewers: |
| 6 | + - TBD |
| 7 | + - "@alicedoe" |
| 8 | +approvers: |
| 9 | + - TBD |
| 10 | + - "@oscardoe" |
| 11 | +creation-date: yyyy-mm-dd |
| 12 | +last-updated: yyyy-mm-dd |
| 13 | +status: provisional|implementable|implemented|deferred|rejected|withdrawn|replaced |
| 14 | +see-also: |
| 15 | + - "/enhancements/this-other-neat-thing.md" |
| 16 | +replaces: |
| 17 | + - "/enhancements/that-less-than-great-idea.md" |
| 18 | +superseded-by: |
| 19 | + - "/enhancements/our-past-effort.md" |
| 20 | +--- |
| 21 | + |
| 22 | +# Title |
| 23 | + |
| 24 | +This is the title of the enhancement. Keep it simple and descriptive. A good |
| 25 | +title can help communicate what the enhancement is and should be considered as |
| 26 | +part of any review. |
| 27 | + |
| 28 | +The title should be lowercased and spaces/punctuation should be replaced with |
| 29 | +`-`. |
| 30 | + |
| 31 | +To get started with this template: |
| 32 | +1. **Pick a domain.** Find the appropriate domain to discuss your enhancement. |
| 33 | +1. **Make a copy of this template.** Copy this template into the directory for |
| 34 | + the domain. |
| 35 | +1. **Fill out the "overview" sections.** This includes the Summary and |
| 36 | + Motivation sections. These should be easy and explain why the community |
| 37 | + should desire this enhancement. |
| 38 | +1. **Create a PR.** Assign it to folks with expertise in that domain to help |
| 39 | + sponsor the process. |
| 40 | +1. **Merge at each milestone.** Merge when the design is able to transition to a |
| 41 | + new status (provisional, implementable, implemented, etc.). View anything |
| 42 | + marked as `provisional` as an idea worth exploring in the future, but not |
| 43 | + accepted as ready to execute. Anything marked as `implementable` should |
| 44 | + clearly communicate how an enhancement is coded up and delivered. If an |
| 45 | + enhancement describes a new deployment topology or platform, include a |
| 46 | + logical description for the deployment, and how it handles the unique aspects |
| 47 | + of the platform. Aim for single topic PRs to keep discussions focused. If you |
| 48 | + disagree with what is already in a document, open a new PR with suggested |
| 49 | + changes. |
| 50 | + |
| 51 | +The `Metadata` section above is intended to support the creation of tooling |
| 52 | +around the enhancement process. |
| 53 | + |
| 54 | +## Release Signoff Checklist |
| 55 | + |
| 56 | +- [ ] Enhancement is `implementable` |
| 57 | +- [ ] Design details are appropriately documented from clear requirements |
| 58 | +- [ ] Test plan is defined |
| 59 | +- [ ] Graduation criteria for dev preview, tech preview, GA |
| 60 | +- [ ] User-facing documentation is created in [openshift/docs] |
| 61 | + |
| 62 | +## Summary |
| 63 | + |
| 64 | +The `Summary` section is incredibly important for producing high quality |
| 65 | +user-focused documentation such as release notes or a development roadmap. It |
| 66 | +should be possible to collect this information before implementation begins in |
| 67 | +order to avoid requiring implementors to split their attention between writing |
| 68 | +release notes and implementing the feature itself. |
| 69 | + |
| 70 | +A good summary is probably at least a paragraph in length. |
| 71 | + |
| 72 | +## Motivation |
| 73 | + |
| 74 | +This section is for explicitly listing the motivation, goals and non-goals of |
| 75 | +this proposal. Describe why the change is important and the benefits to users. |
| 76 | + |
| 77 | +### Goals |
| 78 | + |
| 79 | +List the specific goals of the proposal. How will we know that this has succeeded? |
| 80 | + |
| 81 | +### Non-Goals |
| 82 | + |
| 83 | +What is out of scope for this proposal? Listing non-goals helps to focus discussion |
| 84 | +and make progress. |
| 85 | + |
| 86 | +## Proposal |
| 87 | + |
| 88 | +This is where we get down to the nitty gritty of what the proposal actually is. |
| 89 | + |
| 90 | +### User Stories [optional] |
| 91 | + |
| 92 | +Detail the things that people will be able to do if this is implemented. |
| 93 | +Include as much detail as possible so that people can understand the "how" of |
| 94 | +the system. The goal here is to make this feel real for users without getting |
| 95 | +bogged down. |
| 96 | + |
| 97 | +#### Story 1 |
| 98 | + |
| 99 | +#### Story 2 |
| 100 | + |
| 101 | +### Implementation Details/Notes/Constraints [optional] |
| 102 | + |
| 103 | +What are the caveats to the implementation? What are some important details that |
| 104 | +didn't come across above. Go in to as much detail as necessary here. This might |
| 105 | +be a good place to talk about core concepts and how they releate. |
| 106 | + |
| 107 | +### Risks and Mitigations |
| 108 | + |
| 109 | +What are the risks of this proposal and how do we mitigate. Think broadly. For |
| 110 | +example, consider both security and how this will impact the larger OKD |
| 111 | +ecosystem. |
| 112 | + |
| 113 | +How will security be reviewed and by whom? How will UX be reviewed and by whom? |
| 114 | + |
| 115 | +Consider including folks that also work outside your immediate sub-project. |
| 116 | + |
| 117 | +## Design Details |
| 118 | + |
| 119 | +### Test Plan |
| 120 | + |
| 121 | +**Note:** *Section not required until targeted at a release.* |
| 122 | + |
| 123 | +Consider the following in developing a test plan for this enhancement: |
| 124 | +- Will there be e2e and integration tests, in addition to unit tests? |
| 125 | +- How will it be tested in isolation vs with other components? |
| 126 | + |
| 127 | +No need to outline all of the test cases, just the general strategy. Anything |
| 128 | +that would count as tricky in the implementation and anything particularly |
| 129 | +challenging to test should be called out. |
| 130 | + |
| 131 | +All code is expected to have adequate tests (eventually with coverage |
| 132 | +expectations). |
| 133 | + |
| 134 | +### Graduation Criteria |
| 135 | + |
| 136 | +**Note:** *Section not required until targeted at a release.* |
| 137 | + |
| 138 | +Define graduation milestones. |
| 139 | + |
| 140 | +These may be defined in terms of API maturity, or as something else. Initial proposal |
| 141 | +should keep this high-level with a focus on what signals will be looked at to |
| 142 | +determine graduation. |
| 143 | + |
| 144 | +Consider the following in developing the graduation criteria for this |
| 145 | +enhancement: |
| 146 | +- Maturity levels - `Dev Preview`, `Tech Preview`, `GA` |
| 147 | +- Deprecation |
| 148 | + |
| 149 | +Clearly define what graduation means. |
| 150 | + |
| 151 | +#### Examples |
| 152 | + |
| 153 | +These are generalized examples to consider, in addition to the aforementioned |
| 154 | +[maturity levels][maturity-levels]. |
| 155 | + |
| 156 | +##### Dev Preview -> Tech Preview |
| 157 | + |
| 158 | +- Ability to utilize the enhancement end to end |
| 159 | +- End user documentation, relative API stability |
| 160 | +- Sufficient test coverage |
| 161 | +- Gather feedback from users rather than just developers |
| 162 | + |
| 163 | +##### Tech Preview -> GA |
| 164 | + |
| 165 | +- More testing (upgrade, downgrade, scale) |
| 166 | +- Sufficient time for feedback |
| 167 | +- Available by default |
| 168 | + |
| 169 | +**For non-optional features moving to GA, the graduation criteria must include |
| 170 | +end to end tests.** |
| 171 | + |
| 172 | +##### Removing a deprecated feature |
| 173 | + |
| 174 | +- Announce deprecation and support policy of the existing feature |
| 175 | +- Deprecate the feature |
| 176 | + |
| 177 | +### Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy |
| 178 | + |
| 179 | +If applicable, how will the component be upgraded and downgraded? Make sure this |
| 180 | +is in the test plan. |
| 181 | + |
| 182 | +Consider the following in developing an upgrade/downgrade strategy for this |
| 183 | +enhancement: |
| 184 | +- What changes (in invocations, configurations, API use, etc.) is an existing |
| 185 | + cluster required to make on upgrade in order to keep previous behavior? |
| 186 | +- What changes (in invocations, configurations, API use, etc.) is an existing |
| 187 | + cluster required to make on upgrade in order to make use of the enhancement? |
| 188 | + |
| 189 | +### Version Skew Strategy |
| 190 | + |
| 191 | +How will the component handle version skew with other components? |
| 192 | +What are the guarantees? Make sure this is in the test plan. |
| 193 | + |
| 194 | +Consider the following in developing a version skew strategy for this |
| 195 | +enhancement: |
| 196 | +- During an upgrade, we will always have skew among components, how will this impact your work? |
| 197 | +- Does this enhancement involve coordinating behavior in the control plane and |
| 198 | + in the kubelet? How does an n-2 kubelet without this feature available behave |
| 199 | + when this feature is used? |
| 200 | +- Will any other components on the node change? For example, changes to CSI, CRI |
| 201 | + or CNI may require updating that component before the kubelet. |
| 202 | + |
| 203 | +## Implementation History |
| 204 | + |
| 205 | +Major milestones in the life cycle of a proposal should be tracked in `Implementation |
| 206 | +History`. |
| 207 | + |
| 208 | +## Drawbacks |
| 209 | + |
| 210 | +The idea is to find the best form of an argument why this enhancement should _not_ be implemented. |
| 211 | + |
| 212 | +## Alternatives |
| 213 | + |
| 214 | +Similar to the `Drawbacks` section the `Alternatives` section is used to |
| 215 | +highlight and record other possible approaches to delivering the value proposed |
| 216 | +by an enhancement. |
| 217 | + |
| 218 | +## Infrastructure Needed [optional] |
| 219 | + |
| 220 | +Use this section if you need things from the project. Examples include a new |
| 221 | +subproject, repos requested, github details, and/or testing infrastructure. |
| 222 | + |
| 223 | +Listing these here allows the community to get the process for these resources |
| 224 | +started right away. |
0 commit comments