📖 CAPD(Dev) Proposal

[fabriziopandini]

What this PR does / why we need it:
This document proposes to evolve the CAPD(docker) provider into a more generic CAPD(dev) provider
supporting multiple backends including docker, in-memory, may be also kubemark.

The goal is to reduce toil and maintenance effort for infrastructure provider designed for development and test.

[fabriziopandini]

cc @elmiko

[elmiko]

thank you @fabriziopandini !

/assign elmiko

[elmiko]

i love the motivation for this and the direction it proposes. no suggestions from me currently, i would absolutely bring the kubemark provider into CAPD(ev).

thank you Fabrizio!

[chrischdi]

lgtm overall, pending comments :-)

[k8s-ci-robot]

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: 81826af5499560f6dcafa920c8d751e9df61cb08

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from chrischdi. For more information see the Code Review Process.

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

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

[sbueringer]

/lgtm

[k8s-ci-robot]

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: a5c697859bfbedf628d9be9e2c4c22661d66875d

[elmiko]

i'm happy to see this proposal move forward. i've also been thinking about MachinePool for CAPK, i think it's a great topic for future work.

/lgtm

[elmiko]

we are setting lazy consensus for 7 February, if you have concerns with this proposal please raise them.