Update goals and constraints

[ralphbean]

Recently, more people are coming around the project to learn more about it, how they might use it, and how they might contribute. The aim here is to try to give them the most helpful high level introduction possible before they get to the specifics further down in the doc and further out in the repo.

[twaugh]

Is running renovate (or something similar) an expectation that would be useful to call out here?

[gabemontero]

Neither my comment below, nor what I'm about to state here, are specific to your precise changes per se @ralphbean , but as your updating this doc to facilitate people new to Konflux, I think this is pertinent.

Additional thoughts:

1. shouldn't this doc have a reference to our catalog of pipelines/tasks over in build-definitions?  Or perhaps at least to the partner tasks section over at https://github.com/redhat-appstudio/architecture/blob/main/ADR/0021-partner-tasks.md ?

2. Tekton is a pretty big black box.  When we say "use tekton" my guess is that some guardrails that Konflux ended up employing organically wrt Tekton API will need to be surfaced somehow.  Like the size restriction with the results API as one example.  Or the use of PVCs given the finite amount of those we have on the cluster (even though there are attempts to work around that with the decouple deployment and alpha level k8s features under consideration).

I see where you addressed 2) here @ralphbean but I'm not seeing activity around my suggestion in 1)

Am I missing it? Is it still pending? Or do you not agree with adding such a reference?

thanks

[arewm]

@gabemontero, I don't feel like a reference to the build-definitions are needed here. These updates are just for the high level architecture, goals, etc. and shouldn't really delve into implementation details. Tekton is a big black box and we have done a lot with it. If we need to describe that process more, then maybe we need to add an additional page or add additional context to a current page. Maybe when discussing the custom mode in https://github.com/redhat-appstudio/architecture/blob/main/architecture/build-service.md ?

[gabemontero]

@gabemontero, I don't feel like a reference to the build-definitions are needed here. These updates are just for the high level architecture, goals, etc. and shouldn't really delve into implementation details. Tekton is a big black box and we have done a lot with it. If we need to describe that process more, then maybe we need to add an additional page or add additional context to a current page. Maybe when discussing the custom mode in https://github.com/redhat-appstudio/architecture/blob/main/architecture/build-service.md ?

Well technically @arewm I'm talking about a reference to https://github.com/redhat-appstudio/architecture/blob/main/ADR/0021-partner-tasks.md not build-definitions directly

Bottom line, contributions to the project is going to most likely include new tasks/pipelines. Per @ralphbean 's description up top, we are talking providing guidance for project contributions.

Somehow, maybe with the docs you noted @arewm , we need to draw a more clearer line, IMO, from this starting point if you will, to recommendations from Konflux on how to contribute pipelines / tasks.

Of course, if I'm in the minority in this opinion, we'll go from there.

Hopefully I at least made my real intent here clearer.

[ralphbean]

@gabemontero apologies for not responding sooner. I meant to address point 1 of your feedback in 103a116d233b5c70b78ecb54d041dcb950e3dff3.

[gabemontero]

@gabemontero apologies for not responding sooner. I meant to address point 1 of your feedback in 103a116.

thanks @ralphbean for following up

at least for me, that represents the current state of affairs as best as I understand it

@arewm if you did not catch it, you might want to look at the changes in the commit @ralphbean referenced ^^

IIRC you had some thoughts long term around this area of how users provide new tasks/pipelines

[ralphbean]

@redhat-appstudio/book-publishers even while there are other proposals posted to potentially change things, I'd like to get this merged to get the current state documented. Can I get one more +1?