kubeadm: add KEP for moving kubeadm out of k/k

[neolit123]

/cc @timothysc @fabriziopandini @rosti @ereslibre @detiber @yastij
cc @LucaLanziani

[neolit123]

@kubernetes/sig-cluster-lifecycle
@kubernetes/sig-docs-en-owners @kubernetes/release-engineering

[ereslibre]

Thank you @neolit123, this is a stunning proposal, so well described and detailed.

I'm missing testing and release sorcery so some comments on a first pass.

[justaugustus]

/cc @justaugustus @tpepper

[rosti]

Thanks @neolit123 !
Looks possible. Although I am not sure if it all can be squeezed in a single release cycle.

[onlydole]

This is super dope, @neolit123! Thank you for the major contribution!

[neolit123]

@rosti

Looks possible. Although I am not sure if it all can be squeezed in a single release cycle.

if this spans across multiple releases it is going to be tricky. potentially the release tooling changes can be developed in one cycle and put on hold (unused) until the rest is ready.

[LucaLanziani]

Thanks a lot @neolit123 for writing all this, I reviewed the document and left some feedbacks.

[fabriziopandini]

@neolit123 thanks for this work!
Overall it looks great, only few minors here and there, but nothing blocking/that cannot be addressed later on.

[neolit123]

with respect to the proposals to automate certain aspects of the process. this is something we can grade over time. the goal right now is to get the KEP in an "implementable" state before the deadline, and:

• making sure a "minimal viable product" for the repository move is feasible.
• the process of maintaining kubeadm from a different repository, without being polished, will not end up causing major troubles for us.

[fabriziopandini]

@neolit123 point taken
From my PoV, release/release tag automation will really help, everything else can be improved in subsequent iterations.
For the sake of this KEP, it will be ok to add a note where there is room for such improvements

[fejta-bot]

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta.
/lifecycle stale

[fabriziopandini]

/lifecycle frozen
We should put some effort again on this work and try to overcome current external blockers

[fejta-bot]

Enhancement issues opened in kubernetes/enhancements should never be marked as frozen.
Enhancement Owners can ensure that enhancements stay fresh by consistently updating their states across release cycles.

/remove-lifecycle frozen

[fejta-bot]

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

Send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/lifecycle stale

[fabriziopandini]

/remove-lifecycle stale

[fejta-bot]

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

Send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/lifecycle stale

[fabriziopandini]

/lifecycle frozen

[k8s-ci-robot]

@fabriziopandini: The lifecycle/frozen label cannot be applied to Pull Requests.

In response to this:

/lifecycle frozen

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[fejta-bot]

Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten.
Rotten issues close after an additional 30d of inactivity.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

Send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/lifecycle rotten

[BenTheElder]

@dims another fun quirk #1425 (comment) kubernetes/kubernetes#103151

perhaps this PR should be re-filed when people are ready to more forward with it? I recall dims was interested and I see this got many review comments but .. O(years) ago.

[neolit123]

I think it's fine to close this PR and revisit once the discussions between sig release and cli start for the external kubectl release process. I will leave the branch. /close

[k8s-ci-robot]

@neolit123: Closed this PR.

In response to this:

I think it's fine to close this PR and revisit once the discussions between
sig release and cli start for the external kubectl release process. I will
leave the branch.

/close

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: dims, fabriziopandini, neolit123

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:

• keps/sig-cluster-lifecycle/OWNERS [dims,fabriziopandini,neolit123]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment