Add a skip to create a gcp repo #8
Conversation
A SKIP to add a new repo called `gcp` in the SpinKube organization Signed-off-by: Kedaar Sridhar <[email protected]>
|
|
||
| Inspired by the successful implementation of [SKIP 002](https://github.com/spinkube/skips/tree/main/proposals/002-skips) for Azure, we propose to create a new repository under the SpinKube organization for Google Cloud called `gcp` to host any Google Cloud-specific configurations and integrations. | ||
|
|
||
| The `gcp` repository will contain the basic Helm chart for deploying SpinKube on GKE clusters. Additionally, it will include a marketplace-specific Helm chart for a future Google Cloud marketplace listing. The owners/maintainers of this repository will be Nick Eberts and Gari Singh from Google, along with Fermyon engineering support for this initial integration. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is one area I'd like to revisit. The spinkube/azure repo did set the precedent of creating a generic SpinKube chart (basically, an 'umbrella' chart with all the necessary chart deps in place, i.e. spin-operator, cert-manager and kwasm-operator). This same setup could/would work just fine on GCP, right? If so, it'd be great to avoid following the pattern or replicating the same generic chart in every spinkube cloud-provider repo. Perhaps one solution is to break out the generic spinkube chart into a standalone repo with CI/CD to publish somewhere public (eg ghcr.io)?
However, I don't mean to block on this, since my concern isn't specific to GCP. The first version of this repo could follow the same pattern as spinkube/azure and we can always consolidate/re-org at a later date.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The same setup should work for GCP. I always assumed that the later goal would be to consolidate all the top-level charts into a singular "charts" repo, as you mentioned. I think for now, the repos should be separate since there will be marketplace-specific integrations, with an eventual re-org for any top-level charts. The Google PMs are keen to get moving as well, and might have their own steps in mind for executing this integration.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think for now, the repos should be separate since there will be marketplace-specific integrations
Yes, definitely agree repos should be separate per the marketplace-specific integrations. Thanks, should have clarified that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
did set the precedent of creating a generic SpinKube chart (basically, an 'umbrella' chart with all the necessary chart deps in place, i.e. spin-operator, cert-manager and kwasm-operator).
I think I'd continue to avoid this until we're sure of longer term direction. Partially because chart dependencies caused a lot of pain during early testing of the operator, and so letting a couple of "fewer keystroke" options evolve independently before then reconciling seems ok to me. Premature consolidation mostly reduces experimentation + evolution here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
along with Fermyon engineering support for this initial integration
This should be "SpinKube maintainers" IMO.
calebschoepp
requested review from
calebschoepp,
flavio,
voigt,
0xE282B0 and
a team
and removed request for
flavio,
voigt and
0xE282B0
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Although I'm not a member of any of the assigned teams for review, I thought I'd inject a bit of momentum by submitting an approval, having been active in the spinkube/azure repo that this is modeled after. Thanks @kedaarsridhar20!
A SKIP to add a new repo called
gcpin the SpinKube organization