Re: [hono-dev] Future of the Hono Helm chart

["Lohmann Carsten (IOC/PAP-HU)" <Carsten.Lohmann@xxxxxxxx>]

+ 1

My initial concern here was that we should have the Helm chart in the Hono repository in order to be able to develop the Helm chart as part of adding new Hono features that are not available in a published Hono version yet.

However, this now looks like just a matter of how to approach this: 
When developing a new Hono component for example, for local testing one could work in the local IoT Packages repo and make the necessary changes to the chart there, using the locally built Hono SNAPSHOT version as Helm chart appVersion for testing the chart.

When development is complete, the Helm chart changes could be put into a IoT Packages Pull Request already - marking it as only to be merged, once the corresponding Hono version with the new feature has been released.

Such an approach would be fine with me. And having only one "latest and greatest" chart version probably really will prevent quite some confusion regarding multiple chart versions for the different Hono versions.

> 
> Hi committers,
> 
> with the inception of the Eclipse IoT Packages project [1] there now is
> a home for packages that allow users to deploy Eclipse IoT projects in
> meaningful combinations using the Helm package manager in order to get
> up to speed more quickly. The IoT Packages project also allows for
> Eclipse IoT projects to maintain their project specific Helm chart(s)
> there and publish the chart via the IoT Packages Helm repository.
> 
> The Hono project has been using Helm to install Hono to a kubernetes
> cluster for quite some time and has therefore published a Helm chart via
> the Eclipse download servers. The Helm chart has been maintained as part
> of the Hono project code base and thus has been versioned and released
> in sync with the Hono artifacts.
> 
> It seems obvious that we should take advantage of the IoT Packages Helm
> repository in order to publish the Hono Helm chart so that it can be
> automatically retrieved using the Helm command lilne tool.
> 
> The more interesting question is whether we want to move Hono's Helm
> chart source code to the IoT Packages project as well. Based on our
> experience with maintaining the chart as part of the Hono code base, I
> had raised my concern that we might no longer be able to support
> multiple major/minor versions of the Helm chart. That is due to the fact
> that the IoT Packages code repo on GitHub uses only the master branch
> for maintaining the charts and thus each commit basically represents a
> new version of the affected chart(s). I had been concerned that this
> would make it difficult for us to e.g. fix a bug in a previously
> published major/minor version of the chart. Based on this concern I had
> been in favor of keeping Hono's Helm chart in the Hono code base.
> 
> During the last days we had an interesting discussion in the IoT
> Packages community call where Jens and Thomas raised an interesting
> question: Who do we actually create the Helm charts for?
> 
> So far, I had been assuming that users of the chart should be able to
> use it for installing Hono to get started, but also for installing to a
> production environment. Having given this more thought, I now believe
> that we should probably lower our ambitions a little here. FMPOV it is
> out of the question that we need the Helm chart in order to provide
> (potential) users with an easy way of getting started with Hono. In the
> end, lowering the entry barrier is also the whole point of the IoT
> Packages project. These users will always only be interested in the
> "latest an greatest" version of the chart, as Jens pointed out correctly.
> 
> If users want to use one of our published charts for installing to
> production, then they will need to "pin" the version of that chart in
> order to have a repeatable installation process, as Thomas correctly
> pointed out. I also agree with Jens that people doing so will also most
> likely customize the chart for their specific needs and thus would
> probably not really benefit from a patch version update of the chart in
> the first place.
> 
> So, based on all these thoughts, I would now like to propose that we
> 
> - move the Hono chart to the IoT packages project,
> - rename it to just "hono" in order to comply with the
>   naming conventions in IoT Packages and
> - publish it as version "1.0.0" using appVersion "1.0.3".
> 
> Committers, in order to come to a conclusion regarding this matter, I
> would like to ask for your vote on this proposal.
> 
> 
> [1] https://eclipse.org/packages/
> --
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards
> 
> Kai Hudalla
> 
> Software Developer - Bosch IoT Hub
> 
> Bosch.IO GmbH
> Ullsteinstr. 128
> 12109 Berlin
> GERMANY
> www.bosch.io
> 
> Registered Office: Berlin, Registration Court: Amtsgericht
> Charlottenburg; HRB 148411 B
> Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Dr.-Ing. Thorsten Lücke;
> Managing Directors: Dr. Stefan Ferber, Dr. Aleksandar Mitrovic, Yvonne
> Reckling
> _______________________________________________
> hono-dev mailing list
> hono-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this
> list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/hono-dev


Best regards

Carsten Lohmann

Bosch IoT Hub - Product Area IoT Platform (IOC/PAP-HU) 
Bosch.IO GmbH | Ullsteinstr. 128 | 12109 Berlin | GERMANY | www.bosch.io

Sitz: Berlin, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg; HRB 148411 B 
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Dr.-Ing. Thorsten Lücke; Geschäftsführung: Dr. Stefan Ferber, Dr. Aleksandar Mitrovic, Yvonne Reckling