RFC round-up: June 10th, 2020
First off: sorry, I immediately failed to keep my target pace for these. 😓 I got wrapped up in a deadline, and since I alternate weeks between engineering and community duties like this post, when I miss a week for RFC updates the 2-week interval can quickly turn into 4 or 5.
Owing to the missed round-up, and in hopes of burning through the backlog more quickly so that interested contributors may volunteer for merged RFCs, I’m going to expand the scope of this post to include more RFCs than the last one - primarily by proposing that we merge ones that are nearly certain for the v10 roadmap.
RFCs ready to merge
The following RFCs have been given the
- RFC #31:
set_pipelinestep is the RFC corresponding to the
set_pipelinestep that was introduced experimentally in v5.8. Once this is merged, the step itself will no longer be experimental, but there are a couple of experimental features for the step that are now outlined in the RFC -
team:. These features will result in warnings when used.
- RFC #40: valid identifiers proposes that we restrict the set of allowed characters in Concourse identifiers such as pipeline names, job names, and resource names. Existing pipelines and objects will be grandfathered in to ease the transition. Note: if you’re worried about this change you may be interested in RFC #34.
- RFC #39: var sources is the RFC corresponding to the
var_sourcesfeature, which was also introduced experimentally in v5.8. This feature is a key component to v10 - it unblocks spatial pipelines, per-job timed triggers, and per-pipeline credential management configuration.
- RFC #27: var steps is behind the
load_varstep (shipped experimentally in v6.0), and also introduces a
get_varstep which can theoretically be used to implement per-job trigger intervals. This RFC builds on the var sources concept described in RFC #39.
Per the resolution process, if there are no objections or significant changes in the 2 weeks after this post is published, they will be merged! 🚀
RFCs in need of attention
Quite a few RFCs have had some pretty interesting discussions or developments since the last round-up:
- RFC #36: manual step has had some juicy conversation around how things like approval and manual gating in a pipeline should be expressed in a Concoursey way - if you have thoughts on this, please chime in!
- RFC #37: prototypes is the RFC for the “Prototypes” concept introduced in the Re-inventing resource types blog post. The latest revision introduces encryption, which will enable Prototypes to implement credential managers. If you are a resource type author or if you have a security background, please give it a look!
- RFC #32: projects now has a pretty radical new question: can Projects replace Teams in order to provide more complete cluster config automation? If you’ve ever had a need for automating team configuration, or if you have a thirst for GitOps, this should be a pretty interesting conversation!
- RFC #53: configurable build event stores proposes a pluggable architecture for build event storage as an alternative to storing them in the database.
- RFC #59: static configuration proposes a method for configuring Concourse with a config file that prescribes the teams and projects, in addition to the regular config that would previously have been set in flags or env vars. It also proposes disallowing the use of
fly set-teamat runtime so that the config is the source of truth.
Giving feedback on RFCs is critical to our ability to move forward more quickly and with higher confidence. Any and all comments and questions we receive are deeply appreciated. Thanks to everyone who’s been involved, and thanks in advance to everyone else! 🙂