February 22nd, 2021 Community Meeting

[qu1queee]

• Please add a topic in this thread and add a link to the Github issue associated with the topic.
• Please make sure you give folks enough time to review/discuss the topic offline on Github before coming into the meeting
• (optional) Paste the image of an animal 😸

[qu1queee]

We need a grooming around new issues and what will go into the v0.4.0 release. For the v0.4.0, we might like to cover the following topics:

• docs enhancements
• blockers, e.g. moving out of the operator-sdk, this allows bumping to k8s v1.19 and latest tekton release
• features, we need new features!

Here one of the most dangerous dogs in the world!

[imjasonh]

features, we need new features!

Ooh ooh I have some! 😄

• build.dev -> shipwright.io breaking change Shipwright uses API group *.build.dev #563
  • renaming from "operator" (Rename Shipwright components away from "operator" #607)
• Webhook validation Admission control webhooks for synchronous validation #596
• Triggers leverage tekton SCM trigger support #51

edit:

[qu1queee]

Meeting minutes:

• We discussed the v0.4.0 milestone. Main key points from this discussion are:

  • we should try to introduce as much breaking changes as possible (sooner rather than later), e.g. are Rename Shipwright components away from "operator" #607 and Shipwright uses API group *.build.dev #563 . For this we should also tackle API Review of v1alpha1 #516. @adambkaplan for API Review of v1alpha1 #516 how would you like to proceed, e.g. as part of a backlog grooming meeting?
  • we discussed Exhaustive list of generalized Build API/CRD attributes #184 , this came up from @SaschaSchwarze0 PR for ko as a buildstrategy. @sbose78 I think you opened Exhaustive list of generalized Build API/CRD attributes #184 , @SaschaSchwarze0 @sbose78 do u want to keep Exhaustive list of generalized Build API/CRD attributes #184 for the v0.4.0 milestone or we moved out?
  • there are a couple of issues in this milestone that are intended to unblock us from a k8s v1.19 dependencies bump and from adopting the new Tekton release, these issues are Remove operator-sdk dependencies in application code #584, Generate CRD manifests without operator-sdk #579 and Opt-out from operator-sdk in e2e tests #553 . They are part of our "remove dependencies from the operator-sdk" journey.

• We discussed on meanings around the operator word. Mainly related to Rename Shipwright components away from "operator" #607 . We spoke about different lines of thinking around the meaning of that and how we envision the usage of operator in shipwright-build. Where Rename Shipwright components away from "operator" #607 make sense. Similar to this topic, @imjasonh was wondering on the initial reasons on why we adopted the operator-sdk in the first place and why we decided to opt-out from it. @sbose78 probably can provide additional insights here.

• We discussed on the adoption of a validation webhook, Admission control webhooks for synchronous validation #596. We have consensus on this being beneficial to the project. @imjasonh will follow with an EP on this, to define the details behind this.

• @imjasonh shared his work on the nightly CI.

• @zhangtbj brought a question around the state of the CLI development. Some of the discussions around this can be found in Define root command and initial subcommands cli#2

• @adambkaplan mentioned that there is some ongoing work around the implementation of remote-artifacts EP. @otaviof we should open an issue for this one.

Note: @gabemontero not sure if we would like to consolidate the missing glue-code for the v0.4.0 milestone, let us know.