-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 221
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
[TEP-0104]: Task-level resource requests #673
Conversation
/assign @jerop |
064ba87
to
aa0e735
Compare
Design for tektoncd/pipeline#4470 |
creation-date: '2022-04-08' | ||
last-updated: '2022-04-08' | ||
authors: | ||
- '@lbernick' |
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.
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.
Definitely not a nit! happy to add you, maybe we could also add a "collaborators" field to TEP metadata?
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.
Definitely not a nit! happy to add you, maybe we could also add a "collaborators" field to TEP metadata?
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.
Yep 👍🏼 would work, reading TEP-XXX again, I think the idea might to change the authors to collaborators, and have all under the same liste.
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.
LGTM!
This TEP is one of the first ones using the new design doc based process - looks like there are a couple of things to work out:
-
I think both @vdemeester and @jerop "approved" this which is why the PR got created. So, I think this should be good to merge. But I think the process could be clearer in where the approval should be documented (the issue, the doc, the PR)
-
With a more collaborative process, we should probably update the TEP metadata to contain a list of collaborators
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: dibyom, vdemeester 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 |
/lgtm |
This commit adds TEP-0104, which proposes allowing users to specify Kubernetes resource requests for an entire Task.
/lgtm |
This commit adds TEP-0104, which proposes allowing users to specify Kubernetes
resource requests for an entire Task. Migrated from design doc.
/kind tep