mirror of https://github.com/fluxcd/flux2.git
Merge pull request #2085 from fluxcd/rfc-template
[RFC-0000] Introduce the Flux RFC templatepull/2162/head
commit
3ab578747d
@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
|
|||||||
|
# Flux RFCs
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
In many cases, new features and enhancements are proposed on [flux2/discussions](https://github.com/fluxcd/flux2/discussions).
|
||||||
|
A proposal is discussed in public by maintainers, contributors, users and other interested parties.
|
||||||
|
After some form of consensus is reached between participants, the proposed changes go through the
|
||||||
|
pull request process where the implementation details are reviewed, approved or rejected by maintainers.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Some proposals may be **substantial**, and for these we ask for a design process to be followed
|
||||||
|
so that all stakeholders can be confident about the direction Flux is evolving in.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The "RFC" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a consistent and
|
||||||
|
controlled path for substantial changes to enter Flux.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Examples of substantial changes:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- API additions (new kinds of resources, new relationships between existing APIs)
|
||||||
|
- API breaking changes (new required fields, field removals)
|
||||||
|
- Security related changes (Flux controllers permissions, tenant isolation and impersonation)
|
||||||
|
- Impactful UX changes (new required inputs to the bootstrap process)
|
||||||
|
- Drop capabilities (sunset an existing integration with an external service due to security concerns)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## RFC Process
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- Before submitting an RFC please discuss the proposal with the Flux community.
|
||||||
|
Start a discussion on GitHub and ask for feedback at the weekly dev meeting.
|
||||||
|
You must find a maintainer willing to sponsor the RFC.
|
||||||
|
- Submit an RFC by opening a pull request using [RFC-0000](RFC-0000/README.md) as template.
|
||||||
|
- The sponsor will assign the PR to themselves, will label the PR with `area/RFC` and
|
||||||
|
will request other maintainers to begin the review process.
|
||||||
|
- Integrate feedback by adding commits without overriding the history.
|
||||||
|
- At least two maintainers have to approve the proposal before it can be merged.
|
||||||
|
Approvers must be satisfied that an
|
||||||
|
[appropriate level of consensus](https://github.com/fluxcd/community/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md#decision-guidelines)
|
||||||
|
has been reached.
|
||||||
|
- Before the merge, an RFC number is assigned by the sponsor and the PR branch must be rebased with main.
|
||||||
|
- Once merged, the proposal may be implemented in Flux.
|
||||||
|
The progress could be tracked using the RFC number (used as prefix for issues and PRs).
|
||||||
|
- After the proposal implementation is available in a release candidate or final release,
|
||||||
|
the RFC should be updated with the Flux version added to the "Implementation History" section.
|
||||||
|
- During the implementation phase, the RFC could be discarded due to security or performance concerns.
|
||||||
|
In this case, the RFC "Implementation History" should state the rejection motives.
|
||||||
|
Ultimately the decision on the feasibility of a particular implementation,
|
||||||
|
resides with the maintainers that reviewed the code changes.
|
||||||
|
- A new RFC could be summited with the scope of replacing an RFC rejected during implementation.
|
||||||
|
The new RFC must come with a solution for the rejection motives of the previous RFC.
|
@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
|
|||||||
|
# RFC-NNNN Title
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<!--
|
||||||
|
The title must be short and descriptive.
|
||||||
|
-->
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Status:** provisional
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<!--
|
||||||
|
Status represents the current state of the RFC.
|
||||||
|
Must be one of `provisional`, `implementable`, `implemented`, `deferred`, `rejected`, `withdrawn`, or `replaced`.
|
||||||
|
-->
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Creation date:** YYYY-MM-DD
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Last update:** YYYY-MM-DD
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Summary
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<!--
|
||||||
|
One paragraph explanation of the proposed feature or enhancement.
|
||||||
|
-->
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Motivation
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<!--
|
||||||
|
This section is for explicitly listing the motivation, goals, and non-goals of
|
||||||
|
this RFC. Describe why the change is important and the benefits to users.
|
||||||
|
-->
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Goals
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<!--
|
||||||
|
List the specific goals of this RFC. What is it trying to achieve? How will we
|
||||||
|
know that this has succeeded?
|
||||||
|
-->
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Non-Goals
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<!--
|
||||||
|
What is out of scope for this RFC? Listing non-goals helps to focus discussion
|
||||||
|
and make progress.
|
||||||
|
-->
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Proposal
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<!--
|
||||||
|
This is where we get down to the specifics of what the proposal actually is.
|
||||||
|
This should have enough detail that reviewers can understand exactly what
|
||||||
|
you're proposing, but should not include things like API designs or
|
||||||
|
implementation.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
If the RFC goal is to document best practices,
|
||||||
|
then this section can be replaced with the the actual documentation.
|
||||||
|
-->
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### User Stories
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<!--
|
||||||
|
Optional if existing discussions and/or issues are linked in the motivation section.
|
||||||
|
-->
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Alternatives
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<!--
|
||||||
|
List plausible alternatives to the proposal and explain why the proposal is superior.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
This is a good place to incorporate suggestions made during discussion of the RFC.
|
||||||
|
-->
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Design Details
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<!--
|
||||||
|
This section should contain enough information that the specifics of your
|
||||||
|
change are understandable. This may include API specs and code snippets.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The design details should address at least the following questions:
|
||||||
|
- How can this feature be enabled / disabled?
|
||||||
|
- Does enabling the feature change any default behavior?
|
||||||
|
- Can the feature be disabled once it has been enabled?
|
||||||
|
- How can an operator determine if the feature is in use?
|
||||||
|
- Are there any drawbacks when enabling this feature?
|
||||||
|
-->
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Implementation History
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<!--
|
||||||
|
Major milestones in the lifecycle of the RFC such as:
|
||||||
|
- The first Flux release where an initial version of the RFC was available.
|
||||||
|
- The version of Flux where the RFC graduated to general availability.
|
||||||
|
- The version of Flux where the RFC was retired or superseded.
|
||||||
|
-->
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue