Skip to content

Commit 1eb0241

Browse files
russellbrussellb
committed
Add weekly newsletters to the repository
Doug Hellmann (@dhellmann) and I have started experimenting with a weekly newsletter digest of activity in the OpenShift enhancements repository. This commit includes the editions from the first few weeks we've tried it. The bulk of the structure of the newsletter is generated by a report tool that pulls data from the Github API. We're still iterating on the details of the data collected and its output, but the tool will come in a future PR to this repository. Adding these directly to github will make them easier to discover and refer back to than only having them in a mailing list archive or something similar.
1 parent ec695e7 commit 1eb0241

File tree

4 files changed

+327
-0
lines changed

4 files changed

+327
-0
lines changed

‎this-week/2020-08-28.md

+107
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
1+
# This Week in Enhancements - 2020-08-28
2+
3+
Hello, everyone!
4+
5+
This is the first weekly edition of a new experiment. We want to highlight the
6+
great work happening in the OpenShift enhancements repository in a newsletter
7+
format. We hope to encourage participation in enhancement discussions, but
8+
also to help more people get a feel for new things happening in areas you may
9+
not normally pay attention to.
10+
11+
And now, to the first edition …
12+
13+
## Merged Enhancements
14+
15+
<PR ID>: (reviews this week / total reviews) summary
16+
17+
3 Enhancements have merged in the last week.
18+
19+
[104](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/104): (1/11) add tech preview guidelines
20+
21+
This is an older pull request from Ben Parees that starts to capture things
22+
engineers need to know when implementing a feature that is Tech Preview. It
23+
was resurrected and merged this week. Ongoing feedback is encouraged via
24+
follow-up pull requests.
25+
26+
[405](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/405): (0/41) Add an enhancement for adding a VRF CNI
27+
28+
“To allow isolation, and make it possible to have overlaps between the CIDRs of
29+
secondary networks (and between them and the pod's address space), we want to
30+
introduce a VRF meta cni plugin. Taking advantage of the chaining mechanism, it
31+
can be used to assign a secondary interface to a custom VRF.”
32+
33+
[451](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/451): (1/1) default-ingress-cert-configmap: implemented
34+
35+
This was more of a housekeeping update. Take this as a reminder to think about
36+
enhancements written over the last year. Do any need to be updated to reflect
37+
the current state? Should the enhancement status be updated to “implemented”?
38+
Did the design details change throughout implementation and code review?
39+
40+
## New Enhancements
41+
42+
10 new enhancements were posted this week.
43+
44+
[449](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/449): (0/0) Add Tunable Router Buffer Sizes EP
45+
46+
[450](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/450): (3/3) Adds Contour Operator Enhancement Proposal
47+
48+
[452](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/452): (3/3) Add egress router EP
49+
50+
[453](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/453): (22/22) WIP: network: Add a high level BGP use cases overview
51+
52+
[454](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/454): (44/44) Enhancement for User Space Pod Interface and API Library
53+
54+
This enhancement received the highest number of reviews in the last week!
55+
56+
[455](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/455): (7/7) network: add port registry
57+
58+
[456](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/456): (1/1) Adds ExternalDNS Operator Enhancement Proposal
59+
60+
[457](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/457): (2/2) Enhancement: Select logs By pod label
61+
62+
[458](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/458): (0/0) Whereabouts IPAM CNI Sticky IP Addresses Enhancement
63+
64+
[459](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/459): (22/22) installer: early write up for SLB managed API lbs
65+
66+
## Other Highlights
67+
68+
In addition to listing merged and newly posted pull requests, we would like to
69+
highlight a few enhancements with a bit more commentary.
70+
71+
72+
[436](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/436): enhancement proposal for Packet IPI
73+
74+
OpenShift has grown to include IPI support for multiple platforms. What’s
75+
really interesting about this proposal is that it comes from the Packet.net
76+
team directly. They wrote this enhancement proposal as well as the first PR
77+
against the installer and intend to do all of the work necessary to complete
78+
IPI support for their platform. It is exciting to see this level of engagement
79+
from a provider!
80+
81+
[450](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/450): Adds Contour Operator Enhancement Proposal
82+
83+
A proposal to add an operator for the Contour Project is interesting on its
84+
own. It also includes a really good open question: should the team focus on
85+
building a community operator first that is then used as the basis for the
86+
OpenShift specific operator? This practice is not nearly as common as you
87+
might hope. The Network Edge team has struggled to find any examples beyond
88+
the monitoring operator. Do you have ideas for how best to approach this?
89+
Weigh in on the enhancement with your thoughts!
90+
91+
[423](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/423): Implement OpenStack Cloud Controller Manager support
92+
93+
We need to move from the in-tree OpenStack cloud provider to an external
94+
implementation of the OpenStack cloud controller manager. This is the first
95+
platform where we’re moving to an out-of-tree cloud provider, so in addition to
96+
the OpenStack support, it raises questions about how we handle out-of-tree
97+
providers in general. This enhancement includes a proposal to implement that
98+
general support. It’s great that the OpenStack team is stepping up to
99+
implement this, but an open question on the enhancement asks who should own
100+
this longer term.
101+
102+
103+
That’s all for this week. Feedback welcome!
104+
105+
--
106+
Russell Bryant
107+
Doug Hellmann

‎this-week/2020-09-04.md

+128
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
1+
# This Week in Enhancements - 2020-09-04
2+
3+
This is the second weekly edition of this experiment to provide a weekly digest
4+
newsletter of activity in the OpenShift enhancements repository.
5+
6+
As a request to enhancement authors, please try to capture the area of your
7+
enhancement in the summary line. That will make it easier to determine what
8+
the enhancement is related to when seeing it in a list of 1-liner summaries
9+
either in this list, via email subjects, or when looking at the list of open PRs.
10+
11+
## Merged Enhancements
12+
13+
*<PR ID>: (comments this week / total comments) summary*
14+
15+
There were 8 Merged pull requests:
16+
17+
[259](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/259): (3/5) Add Machine Config Support in NTO proposal.
18+
19+
This enhancement proposes adding the ability for admins to target
20+
MachineConfigPools and create MachineConfigs through the Node Tuning
21+
Operator. With this enhancement we can take another step towards
22+
full support for tuned profiles that need `[bootloader]`
23+
support on RHCOS.
24+
25+
This feature was actually implemented several months ago, but the enhancement
26+
was never merged. It was updated to reflect that it was already implemented
27+
and then merged this week.
28+
29+
[356](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/356): (0/59) network: on premise Service load balancers
30+
31+
OpenShift does not currently support Services of type=LoadBalancer on
32+
bare metal or other on premise infrastructure environments. This
33+
enhancement proposes a way forward, which is to adopt MetalLB.
34+
35+
The document explores some high level requirements, discusses some
36+
alternatives considered, and maps out how we would get to work on
37+
this through technical due diligence, upstream community engagement,
38+
and careful planning of OpenShift integration with a new operator.
39+
40+
There is not currently a target for when this would be fully
41+
supported, as this is a proposed enhancement on a direction to take.
42+
More extensive technical due diligence, development, and testing will
43+
help define the roadmap over time.
44+
45+
[394](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/394): (0/44) Discuss host network configuration interfaces
46+
47+
This change introduces a new enhancement that discusses host network
48+
configuration. It is different from the typical enhancement in that
49+
its goal is informational and to discuss what is already present in
50+
this area. It also provides references to other related works in
51+
progress.
52+
53+
I wrote this first for myself and propose it here in hopes that it
54+
may help others. I find that this context is important and helpful to
55+
understand when discussing or reviewing enhancements for a specific
56+
feature related to host network configuration.
57+
58+
I imagine this as a living document that should get updated as key
59+
improvements are made to how we manage host network configuration for
60+
OpenShift.
61+
62+
[455](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/455): (3/10) network: add port registry
63+
64+
This document isn't exactly an enhancement. Rather it captures host
65+
ports, so developers know which ones they can use.
66+
67+
[457](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/457): (1/3) Enhancment: Select logs By pod label
68+
69+
Add an input selector to the ClusterLogForwarder (CLF) to forward
70+
application logs from pods identified by labels.
71+
72+
Kubernetes has two ways to identify pods: namespaces and labels. The
73+
CLF already has an input selector for namespaces, this enhancement will
74+
add a selector for labels.
75+
76+
### Minor Updates that Merged
77+
78+
[393](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/393): (2/2) cleanup assisted installer bare metal validations enhancement
79+
[294](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/294): (0/0) ingress/logging-api: Update status to "implemented"
80+
[285](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/285): (1/1) host-level-openvswitch: tweaks, enhancements
81+
82+
## New Enhancements
83+
84+
There were 10 New pull requests:
85+
86+
[460](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/460): (0/0) Add empty-requests-policy enhancement
87+
[461](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/461): (0/0) Add aws-elb-idle-timeout enhancement
88+
[462](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/462): (3/3) Add client-tls enhancement
89+
[463](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/463): (2/2) [WIP] Describing steps to support out-of-tree providers
90+
[464](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/464): (1/1) use 'share' instead of 'projectedResourceName' in csi driver yaml examples
91+
[465](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/465): (12/12) Insights operator up to date gathering
92+
93+
This one generated the most comments on a new enhancement this week. The
94+
enhancement proposes a specific method to decouple the Insights Operator from
95+
OpenShift releases, using examples of a drawn out backport process as an
96+
example for why this is desirable. The discussion has highlighted that
97+
becoming an OLM operator that could be installed by default could be a more
98+
general solution to the problem raised, though this would take significant
99+
effort to accomplish. Ongoing improvements to the backport process and
100+
timeline could also reduce the pressure that led to the proposal.
101+
102+
[466](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/466): (3/3) [WIP] Enhancement: Internationalization for console
103+
[467](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/467): (3/3) [WIP] Add MCO Flattened Ignition proposal
104+
[468](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/468): (5/5) Add dedicated instances proposal
105+
[469](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/469): (3/3) enhancement: console user settings
106+
107+
## Closed Enhancements
108+
109+
There was 1 Closed pull request:
110+
111+
[287](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/287): (0/9) Ingress proposal: path rewriting
112+
113+
## Top 5 Most Active Pull Requests
114+
115+
The following PRs received the highest number of comments in the last week:
116+
117+
[429](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/429): (29/29) Enforce label scheme
118+
[448](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/448): (19/41) Proposal to enable JSON data processing
119+
[363](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/363): (17/73) Enhancement for adding upgrade preflight checks for operators
120+
[399](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/399): (17/55) [machine-config-operator/baremetal] MCO declarative network configuration
121+
[423](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/423): (17/24) Implement OpenStack Cloud Controller Manager support
122+
123+
That's it for this week.
124+
125+
Thanks for reading,
126+
127+
Russell Bryant
128+
Doug Hellmann

‎this-week/2020-09-11.md

+83
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
1+
# This Week in Enhancements - 2020-09-11
2+
3+
This is the third weekly edition of this experiment to provide a weekly digest
4+
newsletter of activity in the OpenShift enhancements repository.
5+
6+
## Merged Enhancements
7+
8+
*<PR ID>: (reviews this week / total reviews) summary*
9+
10+
There were 4 Merged pull requests:
11+
12+
[297](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/297): (4/14) Template: add specific guidance in upgrade/downgrade section
13+
14+
Capture some more specific guidance on upgrade/downgrade expectations
15+
to help authors think through their scrnarios.
16+
17+
In https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1794360 we see an example of debate
18+
around our expectations for handling downgrades and rollbacks. The
19+
conclusions there are good examples of the kind of information that
20+
is useful to add to the template.
21+
22+
[399](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/399): (2/57) [machine-config-operator/baremetal] MCO declarative network configuration
23+
24+
Enhancement proposal to extend MCO for declaritive network
25+
configuration.
26+
27+
This is a very interesting enhancement that has had a long discussion.
28+
[399](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/399) is a continuation of
29+
[161](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/161), which was originally
30+
filed in December of 2019.
31+
32+
The enhancement addresses how we can provide a declarative configuration
33+
interface for the network configuration of RHCOS hosts in a way that is
34+
compatible with our existing OpenShift architecture. Configuring network
35+
interfaces on Linux is far from new, but how we model and expose it in
36+
OpenShift is not trivial. See the [host network
37+
configuration](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/blob/master/enhancements/host-network-configuration.md)
38+
document for a higher level discussion of this problem space in OpenShift.
39+
40+
The original proposal was to adopt
41+
[kubernetes-nmstate](https://github.com/nmstate/kubernetes-nmstate) and
42+
[nmstate](https://github.com/nmstate/nmstate) to present host network
43+
configuration through the Kubernetes API and apply changes as needed. This
44+
model seemed to be working well as a generally useful add-on for Kubernetes
45+
cluster.
46+
47+
The design review process helped highlight an important architectural conflict.
48+
We desire to have host configuration owned by the Machine Config Operator
49+
(MCO). Introducing `kubernetes-nmstate` would leave us with another component
50+
managing a subset of host configuration completely outside the view of the MCO,
51+
resulting in potential conflicts that we have no way to resolve.
52+
53+
Over several months, engineers collaborated to explore different alternative
54+
approaches before settling on one that still provides the API features we
55+
desire, but also fits well with the MCO. While different approaches of deep
56+
integration were considered, the final approach has the components peacefully
57+
co-exist with known and defined interactions between them.
58+
59+
### Minor Merged Updates
60+
61+
[464](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/464): (0/1) use 'share' instead of 'projectedResourceName' in csi driver yaml examples
62+
[474](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/474): (0/0) Update OWNERS
63+
64+
65+
## Closed Enhancements
66+
67+
There were 0 Closed pull requests.
68+
69+
70+
## New Enhancements
71+
72+
*<PR ID>: (reviews this week / total reviews) summary*
73+
74+
There were 4 New pull requests:
75+
76+
[470](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/470): (1/1) register the metrics port for the baremetal-operator
77+
[471](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/471): (2/2) Downstream Operator SDK
78+
[472](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/472): (0/0) host-port-registry: Use "control plane" term
79+
[473](https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/pull/473): (1/1) Enhancement: Enable IPsec support in OVNKubernetes
80+
81+
--
82+
Russell Bryant
83+
Doug Hellmann

‎this-week/README.md

+9
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
1+
# This Week in Enhancements
2+
3+
An experiment to produce a weekly newsletter highlighting the activity that has
4+
occurred in the OpenShift enhancements repository.
5+
6+
Goals:
7+
* Make it easy to keep up with activity
8+
* Encourage participation
9+
* Encourage people to read about new things they may not have otherwise read

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)