-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 44
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
Follow KF manifests guidelines #69
Follow KF manifests guidelines #69
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Andrea Lamparelli <a.lamparelli95@gmail.com>
19558ad
to
d3cbd10
Compare
Hi @tarilabs @rimolive , this is a first draft aiming to fill most of the gaps in order to follow Kubeflow Manifests guideline. In the PR description, I summarized what can be done as part of this PR but as initial step I created a simple README and OWNERS file (lmk which members you'd like to put there). What I don't know yet are:
|
When I was looking into this I was thinking of: model-registry/.github/workflows/build-image-pr.yml Lines 44 to 63 in 2d3aa49
which is done with every PR, mimics what there is in the readme which you contributed, and for me it's spot-on; what are your thoughts on this point @rimolive please? |
@tarilabs regarading this point, is there any upgrade process at the moment? I don't think so, as we do not have a release yet, but I'd like a confirmation on this point. Anyway based on the other components, I think that for this we could simply rely on the official Kubeflow documentation (and put any instruction there, or even here in the README that I am adding with this PR). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
thanks @lampajr again for this PR, to me:
the OWNERS file is redundant (reasons below)- wrt to testing, unless comments coming from Manifest WG/leads, I'd assume Follow KF manifests guidelines #69 (comment)
- wrt to update, at this moment we don't have any update procedure documented, further it's only Alpha so there is no b/c guarantee regardless atm
yeah I agree, don't know if we want to extract those checks in a separate script such that it can be easily run as sanity check while deploying KF from manifests. In that case we could place that script here.
+1, I think we can skip this req, at least at the moment. Anyway, happy to discuss and set how to proceed on this topic in the next KFMR meeting 🚀 |
as discussed in KF bi-weekly Model Registry meeting /lgtm |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: lampajr, tarilabs The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Bumps [golang.org/x/net](https://github.com/golang/net) from 0.14.0 to 0.17.0. - [Commits](golang/net@v0.14.0...v0.17.0) --- updated-dependencies: - dependency-name: golang.org/x/net dependency-type: indirect ... Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com> Co-authored-by: dependabot[bot] <49699333+dependabot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
[pull] main from kubeflow:main
As discussed in the last Kubeflow Manifest WG meeting (2024-04-18), this PR aims to properly setup manifests folder to follow the Kubeflow manifests guidelines
Description
Given that, with kubeflow/manifests#2682 we are going to add a custom script to sync Kubeflow Model Registry manifests from this repository to the Kubeflow Manifests one. In this PR I am adding missing files to follow the aforementioned Kubeflow manifests guidelines.
These are the requirements for all components under
/contrib
:README.md
file that documents:we expect all manifests to be a kustomize packages
UPGRADE.md
file that documents any instructions users needto follow when applying manifests of a newer version
is working as expected. This can be something very simple, like submitting a
CustomResource and waiting for it to become Ready
there's some basic automation in place that will be running the above script(s)
How Has This Been Tested?
Merge criteria: