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

Create 2020 roadmap 🛣️ #1999

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

bobcatfish
Copy link
Collaborator

This is a WIP because I would also like additions/changes/feedback specifically from:

And everyone else of course!!!!

Changes

I have put together a roadmap for 2020, which attempts to represent the
most requested of the features and issues that we've seen so far. I did
this by:

I also added a section on Tekton's mission: this is the mission that
we've been using at Google when talking about Tekton - so this is a
great chance for anyone who is viewing Tekton differently to mention
their mission and vision so we can tweak it. Having more clarity around
what everyone is hoping accomplish with Tekton will make it easier to
make decisions around features, etc.

I have put together a roadmap for 2020, which attempts to represent the
most requested of the features and issues that we've seen so far. I did
this by:

* [Reviewing the 2019 roadmap](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zClmMJZU63kEDedjxTI99MCK-mXqm-Ym7PBfjMG5tQE/edit)
* Looking at the oldest and most commented on issues in Tekton Pipelines
  and Tekton Triggers

I also added a section on Tekton's mission: this is the mission that
we've been using at Google when talking about Tekton - so this is a
great chance for anyone who is viewing Tekton differently to mention
their mission and vision so we can tweak it. Having more clarity around
what everyone is hoping accomplish with Tekton will make it easier to
make decisions around features, etc.
@tekton-robot tekton-robot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Feb 4, 2020
@googlebot googlebot added the cla: yes Trying to make the CLA bot happy with ppl from different companies work on one commit label Feb 4, 2020
@tekton-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
To complete the pull request process, please assign bobcatfish
You can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @bobcatfish in a comment when ready.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@tekton-robot tekton-robot added the size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. label Feb 4, 2020
@vdemeester
Copy link
Member

@bobcatfish we should include cli, catalog, dashboard and operator in the ROADMAP I think 😉

@tekton-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

@bobcatfish: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun them all:

Test name Commit Details Rerun command
pull-tekton-pipeline-build-tests 9ac5f08 link /test pull-tekton-pipeline-build-tests

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@vdemeester
Copy link
Member

but then, should this ROADMAP be in community or the website (docs) repository ?

@afrittoli
Copy link
Member

but then, should this ROADMAP be in community or the website (docs) repository ?

We could put it in the community repo, and link to it specific sections from each projects docs.

Copy link
Member

@dibyom dibyom left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for writing this up @bobcatfish

I think putting this in the community repo makes sense if we have the roadmaps for all of Tekton (pipelines, triggers, cli, dashboard etc.)


- [Failure strategies](https://github.com/tektoncd/pipeline/issues/1684)
- [Conditional execution](https://github.com/tektoncd/pipeline/blob/master/docs/conditions.md)
is nearly where we want it, though feedback has indicated this doens't always
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

typo:
tangent: I think adding FailureStrategies is going to resolve some of the missing bits around conditionals!

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

i had to read this several times before seeing the typo XD


* [Improved support for many EventListeners](https://github.com/tektoncd/triggers/issues/370)
* [Pluggable core interceptors](https://github.com/tektoncd/triggers/issues/271)
* [Support for expressions in TriggerBindings](https://github.com/tektoncd/triggers/issues/271)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Technically TriggerBindings already support "expressions" -- just the JSONPath kind. The reason for considering CEL was adding support for extensible functions to Bindings..which I guess is my long winded way of saying a better title might be "Support for extensible functions in TriggerBindings" or something 😃

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

haha kk :D

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

maybe ill change it to something like "increased expression support"

the thing is these "extensible functions" i think are only extensible afaik in that you can build functions into tekton triggers itself, but it's not like users can extend it with functions?

* [Performant Triggers](https://github.com/tektoncd/triggers/issues/406)
* Support for poll-based triggering (e.g. when a repo changes state)
* Support for additional expression languages
* Increased traceability (e.g. why did my interceptor reject the event?)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd say there are mainly two buckets of use cases that we are working on:

-- one for operator user type use cases (aka the listener part) e.g. how many triggers do I add to my eventListener, how do I scale with many event listeners, how do I expose the EL healthchecks, logs, add/remove custom interceptors etc.

-- end user use cases i.e. trigger definitions: expression languages, built in functions (base64 decoding/ trimming commit SHAs), inline bindings etc.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Okay I've tried to capture this in the newest version but you should feel free to just re-write it!


### Beta and GA

In 2019 we got to the point where we had severl projects built on top of Tekton
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: severl -> several

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

making fun of my canadian accent!

As the project matures, we also require:

1. A website that provides a good landing page for users (tekton.dev)
1. Solid, high quality on boarding and documentation
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: on boarding -> onboarding


Tekton's mission:

Be the industry-standard, cloud-native CI/CD platform and ecosystem.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I wonder if this is misleading or not : does tekton aims to be a CI/CD platform on its own or does it aim to provide all the component necessarly to have a CI/CD platform ? (the different, sublte, being that tekton stays un-opiniated)

This is something that can be confusing to end user : do I want to go with straight up Tekton or for something that integrate tekton ?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I wonder if this is misleading or not : does tekton aims to be a CI/CD platform on its own or does it aim to provide all the component necessarly to have a CI/CD platform ? (the different, sublte, being that tekton stays un-opiniated)

How about "platform components" instead of "platform"?

This is something that can be confusing to end user : do I want to go with straight up Tekton or for something that integrate tekton ?

Definitely already confusing! I'm not even sure the answer is clear at the moment. I think that's what I'm trying to get at in the section with the 2 groups of engineers, if you're building a CI/CD system, use Tekton, if not, use something that supports Tekton

@bobcatfish
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Okay I've responded to feedback and moved the proposed roadmap over to the community repo at tektoncd/community#77 PTAL! 🎉

Thanks for all the feedback!

@bobcatfish bobcatfish closed this Feb 14, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
cla: yes Trying to make the CLA bot happy with ppl from different companies work on one commit do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants