Skip to content

Cluster profile: add details about the default profile #414

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Closed
guillaumerose wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Cluster profile: add details about the default profile #414

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
6 changes: 4 additions & 2 deletions enhancements/update/cluster-profiles.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -82,8 +82,8 @@ out of the scope of this design.
CLUSTER_PROFILE=[identifier]
```
This environment variable would have to be specified in the CVO deployment. When
no `CLUSTER_PROFILE=[identifier]` variable is specified, the `default` cluster profile
is in effect.
no `CLUSTER_PROFILE=[identifier]` variable is specified, the `self-managed-highly-available`
cluster profile is in effect.
Copy link
Contributor

@danwinship danwinship Oct 23, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

self-managed-highly-available seems like a bad name for the "default" profile unless "who manages it" and "whether it is highly available" are the only axes on which future profiles are allowed to differ from the default.

Like, if you weren't peeking ahead at future plans, why would you call out self-managed and highly-available as the defining attributes of the default OCP experience, but not mention live-upgradeable or rhcos-control-plane or various other things?

Copy link
Member

@wking wking Oct 24, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These are the known axes, e.g. ROKS moves some control plane components off-cluster (so not self-managed) and CRC is dev-oriented, low resource (so not HA). If we invent more axes later, maybe we'll wish we had been more specific, but 🤷🔮

Copy link
Contributor

@danwinship danwinship Oct 26, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we invent more axes later, maybe we'll wish we had been more specific

Yeah, I meant we should be less specific; just call it default, rather than trying to guess now all of the ways it's going to be different from other future profiles.


The following annotation may be used to include manifests for a given profile:

Expand All @@ -96,6 +96,8 @@ has been specified.
Manifests may support inclusion in multiple profiles by including as many of these annotations
as needed.

Manifests must contain at least one inclusion annotation.

For items such as node selectors that need to vary based on a profile, different manifests
will need to be created to support each variation in the node selector. This feature will
not support including/excluding sections of a manifest. In order to avoid drift and
Expand Down