Date   

Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

William Morgan
 

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 8:17 PM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote:
Linkerd doesn't have to run as a host-level proxy, though I don't know how many people deploy it as a sidecar in practice. Host-level proxies also can make sense in some scenarios.

Most that we're aware of run Linkerd per host. There are a couple companies that use it as a sidecar, and don't Linkerd's resource requirements heavyweight relative to the existing footprint of their services.
 
I don't know how much of an issue it is for linkerd users, but, irrespective of features and resource profiles, I could imagine a language preference, for dev and ops teams familiar with Java/Scala, particularly if they are writing plugins.

Absolutely. The JVM platform and the plugin model are huge deal for some very large companies. I'm happy to provide examples off list.
 


Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

William Morgan
 

Yes. I can't speak for the other community folks, but Buoyant is planning its Q2 Linkerd roadmap right now. Dark traffic, rate limiting, backup requests, configurable communication policy in namerd, and a couple other big features are all on the docket.

-William

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:48 PM, Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:
Hi, William.

Are there any specific large areas of upcoming development in linkerd, which would provide an opportunity for onboarding new contributors? Most post-1.3.0 (reasonably) looks like fixes and minor improvements.


On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 1:28 PM William Morgan <william@...> wrote:
Thanks! And those are just the public ones. :)

Re: code percentages. This is a side-effect of where the project started, but we definitely want to diversify and I expect that it will happen naturally over time. E.g. we've had a couple non-Buoyant folks who have done major bits of work over the past year (and we've been expanding the maintainers list to reflect that).

-William

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 11:08 AM, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
+1 (non binding)

Impressive production adoption!
I notice that 95%+ of code is contributed by current Buoyant employees.  Any plans to diversify that in the future?  To be clear, this is not a pre-requisite for incubation.

Quinton Hoole

Technical Vice President

America Research Center

2330 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95050

Tel: 408-330-4721   Cell: 408-320-8917   Office # E2-9

Email: quinton.hoole@...   ID#Q00403160


From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Thursday, March 15, 2018 at 10:28
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

The linkerd team has requested a move to the incubation level: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/86 

You can see the project statistics here: https://linkerd.devstats.cncf.io/ and the linkerd project believes they meet the incubation criteria requirements:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/blob/master/ADOPTERS.md
- Have a healthy number of committers: https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/blob/master/MAINTAINERS.md
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/releases and https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/graphs/contributors

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full incubation proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/86

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719




Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

Robert Panzer
 

+1 (non-binding)


Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

Brian Grant
 

At the moment, it looks like linkerd maybe still has more user mindshare, though envoy has more contributors.


Linkerd doesn't have to run as a host-level proxy, though I don't know how many people deploy it as a sidecar in practice. Host-level proxies also can make sense in some scenarios.

Maybe what you're getting at is what do we see as the driving use cases in the future for linkerd, relative to alternatives such as envoy and conduit? 

The only direct comparison I found in a quick search was in the envoy docs, and looks possibly out of date:

I don't know how much of an issue it is for linkerd users, but, irrespective of features and resource profiles, I could imagine a language preference, for dev and ops teams familiar with Java/Scala, particularly if they are writing plugins.

Since users will ask, it would be useful to provide some information they could use to choose one or the other.

But I don't think that impacts whether linkerd currently meets the bar for incubation or not, and by our "no kingmaking" principle it seems premature for us to choose one now.


On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:02 PM Justin Garrison <justinleegarrison@...> wrote:
​-1 non-binding

I think linkerd does a great job helping applications gain resilience from the network proxy and it has done an amazing 🙌 job and educating users and gaining production usage. I don't see linkerd as a product having as much traction going forward and have a hard time seeing more development diversity going forward. The resource requirements of it and the pattern of a hostcentric proxy have trade-offs that I don't think reinforce the other patterns and products the CNCF has promoted as cloud native.


--
Justin Garrison
justingarrison.com

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 8:25 PM, Joseph Jacks <jacks.joe@...> wrote:
+1 (non-binding)



Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

Brian Grant
 

Hi, William.

Are there any specific large areas of upcoming development in linkerd, which would provide an opportunity for onboarding new contributors? Most post-1.3.0 (reasonably) looks like fixes and minor improvements.


On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 1:28 PM William Morgan <william@...> wrote:
Thanks! And those are just the public ones. :)

Re: code percentages. This is a side-effect of where the project started, but we definitely want to diversify and I expect that it will happen naturally over time. E.g. we've had a couple non-Buoyant folks who have done major bits of work over the past year (and we've been expanding the maintainers list to reflect that).

-William

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 11:08 AM, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
+1 (non binding)

Impressive production adoption!
I notice that 95%+ of code is contributed by current Buoyant employees.  Any plans to diversify that in the future?  To be clear, this is not a pre-requisite for incubation.

Quinton Hoole

Technical Vice President

America Research Center

2330 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95050

Tel: 408-330-4721   Cell: 408-320-8917   Office # E2-9

Email: quinton.hoole@...   ID#Q00403160


From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Date: Thursday, March 15, 2018 at 10:28
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

The linkerd team has requested a move to the incubation level: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/86 

You can see the project statistics here: https://linkerd.devstats.cncf.io/ and the linkerd project believes they meet the incubation criteria requirements:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/blob/master/ADOPTERS.md
- Have a healthy number of committers: https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/blob/master/MAINTAINERS.md
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/releases and https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/graphs/contributors

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full incubation proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/86

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719



Re: TOC Agenda for 3/19/2018

Ken Owens
 

I am on vacation this week and will not be dailing in 😀


On Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 10:31 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
and some folks have said the google short link isn't working, here's the full link:


On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
oh... and by 3/19/2018 I meant 3/20/2018, the CNCF TOC meeting is tomorrow :)

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Here's the draft agenda deck for tomorrow: https://goo.gl/PpznT7

We'll be welcoming NATS (incubation) to CNCF, along with OPA/SPIFEE and sandbox projects, discussing sandbox guidelines v1.0, working group creation process, update on reference architecture and opening it up to the community for questions as I believe we have a light agenda compared to normal.

Also Alexis sends his regrets.

See everyone tomorrow!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719



--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719



--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

cncf.io@...
 

+1 (non-binding)


Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

Ben Hoyt
 

+1 (non-binding)


Re: TOC Agenda for 3/19/2018

Chris Aniszczyk
 

and some folks have said the google short link isn't working, here's the full link:


On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
oh... and by 3/19/2018 I meant 3/20/2018, the CNCF TOC meeting is tomorrow :)

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Here's the draft agenda deck for tomorrow: https://goo.gl/PpznT7

We'll be welcoming NATS (incubation) to CNCF, along with OPA/SPIFEE and sandbox projects, discussing sandbox guidelines v1.0, working group creation process, update on reference architecture and opening it up to the community for questions as I believe we have a light agenda compared to normal.

Also Alexis sends his regrets.

See everyone tomorrow!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719



--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719



--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: TOC Agenda for 3/19/2018

Chris Aniszczyk
 

oh... and by 3/19/2018 I meant 3/20/2018, the CNCF TOC meeting is tomorrow :)

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Here's the draft agenda deck for tomorrow: https://goo.gl/PpznT7

We'll be welcoming NATS (incubation) to CNCF, along with OPA/SPIFEE and sandbox projects, discussing sandbox guidelines v1.0, working group creation process, update on reference architecture and opening it up to the community for questions as I believe we have a light agenda compared to normal.

Also Alexis sends his regrets.

See everyone tomorrow!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719



--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


TOC Agenda for 3/19/2018

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Here's the draft agenda deck for tomorrow: https://goo.gl/PpznT7

We'll be welcoming NATS (incubation) to CNCF, along with OPA/SPIFEE and sandbox projects, discussing sandbox guidelines v1.0, working group creation process, update on reference architecture and opening it up to the community for questions as I believe we have a light agenda compared to normal.

Also Alexis sends his regrets.

See everyone tomorrow!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

Richard Hartmann
 

+1 non-binding


Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

Nikolay Pshenichnyy
 

+1 (non-binding)

Linkerd is an excellent service mesh proxy!


Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

Daniel Bryant
 

+1 (non-binding)

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 5:28 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
The linkerd team has requested a move to the incubation level: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/86 

You can see the project statistics here: https://linkerd.devstats.cncf.io/ and the linkerd project believes they meet the incubation criteria requirements:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/blob/master/ADOPTERS.md
- Have a healthy number of committers: https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/blob/master/MAINTAINERS.md
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/releases and https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/graphs/contributors

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full incubation proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/86

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719



Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

alexis richardson
 

thank-you for the detailed summary, George!

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Georgi Khomeriki <g.khomeriki@...> wrote:
+1 (non binding)

Linkerd provides a mature and production-ready implementation of a service
mesh. There are several areas where its architecture has considerable
benefits over currently available alternatives. For example, linkerd's
plugin-based architecture provides extensibility of the data plane that
allows for much more customized integrations into pre-existing architectures
compared to alternatives that allow customization via remote API contracts.
Although the JVM overhead is a downside, there are many use-cases where
linkerd is a great fit.



On 16 March 2018 at 13:18, Zack Angelo <zack.angelo@...> wrote:

+1 (non-binding)


Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

g.khomeriki@...
 

+1 (non binding)

Linkerd provides a mature and production-ready implementation of a service mesh. There are several areas where its architecture has considerable benefits over currently available alternatives. For example, linkerd's plugin-based architecture provides extensibility of the data plane that allows for much more customized integrations into pre-existing architectures compared to alternatives that allow customization via remote API contracts. Although the JVM overhead is a downside, there are many use-cases where linkerd is a great fit.



On 16 March 2018 at 13:18, Zack Angelo <zack.angelo@...> wrote:
+1 (non-binding)



Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

Zack Angelo <zack.angelo@...>
 

+1 (non-binding)


Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

Dan Richelson
 

+1 (non-binding)

Linkerd is legit with a great core team and supporting community!


Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

Ruben Orduz <ruben@...>
 

+1 (non-binding)

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 12:07 AM, Chris Short via Lists.Cncf.Io <chris=chrisshort.net@...> wrote:
0 non-binding

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 21:02 Justin Garrison <justinleegarrison@...> wrote:
​-1 non-binding

I think linkerd does a great job helping applications gain resilience from the network proxy and it has done an amazing 🙌 job and educating users and gaining production usage. I don't see linkerd as a product having as much traction going forward and have a hard time seeing more development diversity going forward. The resource requirements of it and the pattern of a hostcentric proxy have trade-offs that I don't think reinforce the other patterns and products the CNCF has promoted as cloud native.


--
Justin Garrison
justingarrison.com

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 8:25 PM, Joseph Jacks <jacks.joe@...> wrote:
+1 (non-binding)


--



Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

Chris Short
 

0 non-binding


On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 21:02 Justin Garrison <justinleegarrison@...> wrote:
​-1 non-binding

I think linkerd does a great job helping applications gain resilience from the network proxy and it has done an amazing 🙌 job and educating users and gaining production usage. I don't see linkerd as a product having as much traction going forward and have a hard time seeing more development diversity going forward. The resource requirements of it and the pattern of a hostcentric proxy have trade-offs that I don't think reinforce the other patterns and products the CNCF has promoted as cloud native.


--
Justin Garrison
justingarrison.com

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 8:25 PM, Joseph Jacks <jacks.joe@...> wrote:
+1 (non-binding)


5261 - 5280 of 7186