Skip to content
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.

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

quay as a utility registry #2

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
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
189 changes: 189 additions & 0 deletions utility-registry/utility-registry.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,189 @@
---
title: Utility Registry
authors:
- "@thomasmckay"
reviewers:
- TBD
approvers:
- TBD
creation-date: 2021-03-04
last-updated: 2021-03-04
status: provisional
see-also:
- N/A
replaces:
- N/A
superseded-by:
- N/A
---

# Quay as a Utility Registry

## Release Signoff Checklist

- [ ] Enhancement is `implementable`
- [ ] Design details are appropriately documented from clear requirements
- [ ] Test plan is defined
- [ ] Graduation criteria for dev preview, tech preview, GA

## Open Questions [optional]

> 1. TBD

## Summary

Enhance Quay to be run in a much simpler and flexible way to facilitate small and/or ephemeral registries. Simple deployment, running, and maintenance would allow more use cases to be solved with the existing code base.

## Motivation

Quay is designed to be deployed and run at a massive scale. However, there is a need for a smaller footprint utilitarian registry that Quay may also fulfill. This profile would be focused on the "docker distribution" model where Quay is thought of as a service for more narrowly defined workloads.

### Goals

> 1. Extremely simple and robust installation
> 2. Easily maintained and monitored
> 3.

### Non-Goals

> 1.

## Proposal

This is where we get down to the nitty gritty of what the proposal actually is.

### User Stories [optional]

Detail the things that people will be able to do if this is implemented.
Include as much detail as possible so that people can understand the "how" of
the system. The goal here is to make this feel real for users without getting
bogged down.

#### Story 1

#### Story 2

### Implementation Details/Notes/Constraints [optional]

What are the caveats to the implementation? What are some important details that
didn't come across above. Go in to as much detail as necessary here. This might
be a good place to talk about core concepts and how they releate.

### Risks and Mitigations

What are the risks of this proposal and how do we mitigate. Think broadly. For
example, consider both security and how this will impact the larger Operator Framework
ecosystem.

How will security be reviewed and by whom? How will UX be reviewed and by whom?

Consider including folks that also work outside your immediate sub-project.

## Design Details

### Test Plan

**Note:** *Section not required until targeted at a release.*

Consider the following in developing a test plan for this enhancement:
- Will there be e2e and integration tests, in addition to unit tests?
- How will it be tested in isolation vs with other components?

No need to outline all of the test cases, just the general strategy. Anything
that would count as tricky in the implementation and anything particularly
challenging to test should be called out.

All code is expected to have adequate tests (eventually with coverage
expectations).

### Graduation Criteria

**Note:** *Section not required until targeted at a release.*

Define graduation milestones.

These may be defined in terms of API maturity, or as something else. Initial proposal
should keep this high-level with a focus on what signals will be looked at to
determine graduation.

Consider the following in developing the graduation criteria for this
enhancement:
- Maturity levels - `Dev Preview`, `Tech Preview`, `GA`
- Deprecation

Clearly define what graduation means.

#### Examples

These are generalized examples to consider, in addition to the aforementioned
[maturity levels][maturity-levels].

##### Dev Preview -> Tech Preview

- Ability to utilize the enhancement end to end
- End user documentation, relative API stability
- Sufficient test coverage
- Gather feedback from users rather than just developers

##### Tech Preview -> GA

- More testing (upgrade, downgrade, scale)
- Sufficient time for feedback
- Available by default

**For non-optional features moving to GA, the graduation criteria must include
end to end tests.**

##### Removing a deprecated feature

- Announce deprecation and support policy of the existing feature
- Deprecate the feature

### Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy

If applicable, how will the component be upgraded and downgraded? Make sure this
is in the test plan.

Consider the following in developing an upgrade/downgrade strategy for this
enhancement:
- What changes (in invocations, configurations, API use, etc.) is an existing
cluster required to make on upgrade in order to keep previous behavior?
- What changes (in invocations, configurations, API use, etc.) is an existing
cluster required to make on upgrade in order to make use of the enhancement?

### Version Skew Strategy

How will the component handle version skew with other components?
What are the guarantees? Make sure this is in the test plan.

Consider the following in developing a version skew strategy for this
enhancement:
- During an upgrade, we will always have skew among components, how will this impact your work?
- Does this enhancement involve coordinating behavior in the control plane and
in the kubelet? How does an n-2 kubelet without this feature available behave
when this feature is used?
- Will any other components on the node change? For example, changes to CSI, CRI
or CNI may require updating that component before the kubelet.

## Implementation History

Major milestones in the life cycle of a proposal should be tracked in `Implementation
History`.

## Drawbacks

The idea is to find the best form of an argument why this enhancement should _not_ be implemented.

## Alternatives

Similar to the `Drawbacks` section the `Alternatives` section is used to
highlight and record other possible approaches to delivering the value proposed
by an enhancement.

## Infrastructure Needed [optional]

Use this section if you need things from the project. Examples include a new
subproject, repos requested, github details, and/or testing infrastructure.

Listing these here allows the community to get the process for these resources
started right away.