Re: [cncf-flux-maintainers] [cncf-toc] Flux for Incubation Public Comment Period

Michael Bridgen <michael@...>

Hi Liz, Michelle, all,

Stefan and Daniel have responded on individual points. I'll attempt to fill in the remainder --

On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 14:17, Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
I see the note that Flux is working on a broader project description, which is great. Is this close? If it's possible I'd love to have this in place so that CNCF doesn't end up promoting a description that is out of date. 

The discussion in may run for a while. Current project descriptions for Flux are a little vague (my fault) and don't account for recent developments like Flagger being included; but I don't think they mischaracterise Flux. If they are not quite fit for official communications, we'll happily work with CNCF folks to tighten them up -- or indeed, put more effort into bringing #620 to a conclusion.

As I understand it the idea is to include Flagger as part of Flux in this move to Incubation? It's part of the org. But a couple of notes on the Flagger docs that I would like to see resolved before incubation: 
* The intro page says "Flagger is a Cloud Native Computing Foundation project." but doesn't mention that it's part of Flux
* Uses the Weave logo (though I see this is noted as a to-do in the DD doc) 

These are now resolved, as Stefan reported.
Looks like lots of work went into helping users transition from Flux v1 to v2. Do we know what proportion of end users have made the migration? When the Technology Radar put it in the "adopt" category, would this have referred to v1, v2, or a mixture? 

There is good circumstantial evidence that people are migrating from v1, in addition to those coming new to Flux v2:

 - there's a steady stream of people asking about using image update automation (a Flux v1 feature that's only recently been added to Flux v2). Some of those people mention holding off migration until they can use the automation, and some people appear to be migrating in two stages (without automation first, and planning to add the automation when ready);
 - similarly, people asking about updating from Helm operator (v1) to Helm controller (v2) -- this was made more urgent by Helm2 being deprecated, of course;
 - we get a lot of engagement from people who want parts of Flux v2 to work a little more like v1 (e.g., people weighing in on

However, I'm afraid we don't have telemetry or other data from which to calculate the proportion of Flux v1 end users that have migrated.

The CNCF Technology Radar is based on reports from Flux v1 users only -- v2 was at version 0.0.1 at the time the radar was published. I feel that being placed in the "Adopt" category of the radar is not simply a one-off endorsement, but sets the bar to keep measuring ourselves against. In consequence, there's a strong impetus to help people migrate their systems to v2, and give them plenty of time, so they don't feel stranded and let down.

Something of a small aside - I think the first Q&A in this FAQ about Argo / Flux collaboration reflects the current status, but do the subsequent questions reflect what the aspirations were originally in the Flux/Argo collaboration? And those are no longer being worked on together, right?

Thanks for pointing that out -- after the first question, the FAQs there are out of date. Daniel has given things a nudge.


On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 2:00 PM Michelle Noorali via <> wrote:

Flux is applying for incubation status:
DD has been reviewed by myself and SIG App Delivery. We've also conducted interviews with end users. We are supportive of Flux going into incubation. We are now calling for the 2 week public comment period prior to the vote.

Thank you,

Michelle Noorali

Join to automatically receive all group messages.