Add process for reference architectures #63
Conversation
rochaporto
added
the
area/reference-architecture
process/reference-architectures.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| *Who: Individual End Users, Groups of End Users, Community Groups* | ||
|
|
||
| New reference architectures should be submitted via [this github template]() (TODO template!) by individual end users, groups of end users from a specific domain or end user group, or community groups. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@mrbobbytables @taylorwaggoner you work on the template magic or should i do it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@castrojo we likely need something similar to: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/main/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/project-health.yaml
with pre-defined fields for these items at least:
- The contact for the reference architecture;
- The end user(s) organization(s) backing the submission and its content;
- The CNCF projects being used by the stack;
- (optional) The domain or industry of the reference architecture;
We can tune it later.
|
Original google doc with discussion: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n102490XsnYavPx6hV8OnbBbSwy51A1cjD4mSjHHjLQ/edit?usp=sharing |
rochaporto
force-pushed
the
processrefarchs
branch
from
640bb5e to
47c9be2
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Lgtm overall.
Note: Submission template needed.
Comment: We may want to make it easier for end-users to reference a category in the CNCF Landscape. This may make it easier for end-users to get internal approvals and to be able to submit reference architectures focused on a specific major area (e.g. Application Definition & Image Build).
Signed-off-by: Ricardo Rocha <ricardo.rocha@cern.ch>
small changes, typo fixes. Signed-off-by: Chad Beaudin <chad@thebeaudins.com>
Signed-off-by: Ricardo Rocha <ricardo.rocha@cern.ch>
rochaporto
force-pushed
the
processrefarchs
branch
from
c2b8cd5 to
8f04beb
Compare
|
|
||
| ## Workflow Steps | ||
|
|
||
| ### 1. Proposed |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should there be any up front guidance in the process explaining the intent of reference architectures and maybe also what would not be considered acceptable? Or do we just let that come out in the review process?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Absolutely. We should add goals, DOs and DONTs, etc. Should we keep it in the process here or have a separate doc page and link to that later?
5 participants
No description provided.