ce441bdc32
* Instead of cloning, reindex legacy index * Reindex for every v2 migration * Use _reindex?require_alias=true and a write block toggle to prevent lost deletes * Use a ..._reindex_in_progress alias so that waiting for and preventing other reindex operations is idempotent The first version of the reindex block had only the instance which was able to mark the migration as complete set and remove the write block. This means other instances couldn't know if any reindex operaitons were in progress if the migration was already marked as complete. It also meant that a failure in this critical step could result in a permanent write block. * Revert "Use a ..._reindex_in_progress alias so that waiting for and preventing other reindex operations is idempotent" This reverts commit |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| images | ||
| text | ||
| 0000_template.md | ||
| README.md | ||
Kibana RFCs
We are currently trialing a new RFC process for the Kibana Core team at this time.
Many changes, including small to medium features, fixes, and documentation improvements can be implemented and reviewed via the normal GitHub pull request workflow.
Some changes though are "substantial", and we ask that these be put through a bit of a design process and produce a consensus among the relevant Kibana team.
The "RFC" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a consistent and controlled path for new features to enter the project.
Kibana is still actively developing this process, and it will still change as more features are implemented and the community settles on specific approaches to feature development.
Contributor License Agreement (CLA)
In order to accept your pull request, we need you to submit a CLA. You only need to do this once, so if you've done this for another Elastic open source project, you're good to go.
When to follow this process
You should consider using this process if you intend to make "substantial" changes to Kibana or its documentation. Some examples that would benefit from an RFC are:
- A new feature that creates new API surface area, such as a new core service available to plugins.
- The removal of features that already shipped as part of a release.
- The introduction of new idiomatic usage or conventions, even if they do not include code changes to Kibana itself.
The RFC process is a great opportunity to get more eyeballs on your proposal before it becomes a part of a released version of Kibana. Quite often, even proposals that seem "obvious" can be significantly improved once a wider group of interested people have a chance to weigh in.
The RFC process can also be helpful to encourage discussions about a proposed feature as it is being designed, and incorporate important constraints into the design while it's easier to change, before the design has been fully implemented.
Some changes do not require an RFC:
- Rephrasing, reorganizing or refactoring
- Addition or removal of warnings
- Additions that strictly improve objective, numerical quality criteria (speedup, better browser support)
- Addition of features that do not impact other Kibana plugins (do not expose any API to other plugins)
What the process is
In short, to get a major feature added to Kibana Core, one usually first gets the RFC merged into the RFC tree as a markdown file. At that point the RFC is 'active' and may be implemented with the goal of eventual inclusion into Kibana.
- Fork the Kibana repo http://github.com/elastic/kibana
- Copy
rfcs/0000_template.mdtorfcs/text/0001_my_feature.md(where 'my_feature' is descriptive. Assign a number. Check that an RFC with this number doesn't already exist inmasteror an open PR). - Fill in the RFC. Put care into the details: RFCs that do not present convincing motivation, demonstrate understanding of the impact of the design, or are disingenuous about the drawbacks or alternatives tend to be poorly-received.
- Submit a pull request. As a pull request the RFC will receive design feedback from the larger community and Elastic staff. The author should be prepared to revise it in response.
- Build consensus and integrate feedback. RFCs that have broad support are much more likely to make progress than those that don't receive any comments.
- Eventually, the team will decide whether the RFC is a candidate for inclusion in Kibana.
- RFCs that are candidates for inclusion in Kibana will enter a "final comment period" lasting at least 3 working days. The beginning of this period will be signaled with a comment and tag on the RFCs pull request.
- An RFC can be modified based upon feedback from the team and community. Significant modifications may trigger a new final comment period.
- An RFC may be rejected by the team after public discussion has settled and comments have been made summarizing the rationale for rejection. A member of the team should then close the RFCs associated pull request.
- An RFC may be accepted at the close of its final comment period. A team member will merge the RFCs associated pull request, at which point the RFC will become 'active'.
The RFC life-cycle
Once an RFC becomes active, then authors may implement it and submit the feature as a pull request to the Kibana repo. Becoming 'active' is not a rubber stamp, and in particular still does not mean the feature will ultimately be merged; it does mean that the core team has agreed to it in principle and are amenable to merging it.
Furthermore, the fact that a given RFC has been accepted and is 'active' implies nothing about what priority is assigned to its implementation, nor whether anybody is currently working on it.
Modifications to active RFCs can be done in followup PRs. We strive to write each RFC in a manner that it will reflect the final design of the feature; but the nature of the process means that we cannot expect every merged RFC to actually reflect what the end result will be at the time of the next major release; therefore we try to keep each RFC document somewhat in sync with the Kibana feature as planned, tracking such changes via followup pull requests to the document. You may include updates to the RFC in the same PR that makes the code change.
Implementing an RFC
The author of an RFC is not obligated to implement it. Of course, the RFC author (like any other developer) is welcome to post an implementation for review after the RFC has been accepted.
If you are interested in working on the implementation for an 'active' RFC, but cannot determine if someone else is already working on it, feel free to ask (e.g. by leaving a comment on the associated issue).
Reviewing RFCs
Each week the team will attempt to review some set of open RFC pull requests.
Every accepted feature should have a core team champion, who will represent the feature and its progress.
Kibana's RFC process owes its inspiration to the React RFC process, Yarn RFC process, Rust RFC process, and Ember RFC process