|
| 1 | += Definition of Maintenance Windows for the Managed Applications |
| 2 | +Sönke Liebau <soenke.liebau@stackable.tech> |
| 3 | +v0.1, 2023-01-30 |
| 4 | +:status: draft |
| 5 | + |
| 6 | +* Status: {status} |
| 7 | +* Deciders: [list everyone involved in the decision] <!-- optional --> |
| 8 | +* Date: [YYYY-MM-DD when the decision was last updated] <!-- optional --> |
| 9 | +
|
| 10 | +Technical Story: [description | ticket/issue URL] <!-- optional --> |
| 11 | + |
| 12 | +== Context and Problem Statement |
| 13 | + |
| 14 | +When operating productive environments with the tools of the SDP, it can often be desirable to avoid restarts or changes unless they have been planned and communicated. |
| 15 | + |
| 16 | +There are a couple of things that could trigger a change that in turn trigger a restart of the applications in the SDP: |
| 17 | + |
| 18 | +- User changes to the definitions (CRDs) |
| 19 | +- Operator upgrade that causes different objects to be written for the same definition |
| 20 | +- Changes to dependent objects |
| 21 | +- ... |
| 22 | + |
| 23 | +In order to enable users to better control when these changes are allowed to affect deployed applications we should add the ability to define maintenance windows |
| 24 | + |
| 25 | +== Decision Drivers <!-- optional --> |
| 26 | + |
| 27 | +* [driver 1, e.g., a force, facing concern, …] |
| 28 | +* [driver 2, e.g., a force, facing concern, …] |
| 29 | +* … <!-- numbers of drivers can vary --> |
| 30 | + |
| 31 | +== Considered Options |
| 32 | + |
| 33 | +* Implement a top level struct that can in |
| 34 | +* [option 2] |
| 35 | +* [option 3] |
| 36 | +* … <!-- numbers of options can vary --> |
| 37 | + |
| 38 | +== Decision Outcome |
| 39 | + |
| 40 | +Chosen option: "[option 1]", because [justification. e.g., only option, which meets k.o. criterion decision driver | which resolves force force | … | comes out best (see below)]. |
| 41 | + |
| 42 | +=== Positive Consequences <!-- optional --> |
| 43 | + |
| 44 | +* [e.g., improvement of quality attribute satisfaction, follow-up decisions required, …] |
| 45 | +* … |
| 46 | + |
| 47 | +=== Negative Consequences <!-- optional --> |
| 48 | + |
| 49 | +* [e.g., compromising quality attribute, follow-up decisions required, …] |
| 50 | +* … |
| 51 | + |
| 52 | +== Pros and Cons of the Options <!-- optional --> |
| 53 | + |
| 54 | +=== [option 1] |
| 55 | + |
| 56 | +[example | description | pointer to more information | …] <!-- optional --> |
| 57 | + |
| 58 | +* Good, because [argument a] |
| 59 | +* Good, because [argument b] |
| 60 | +* Bad, because [argument c] |
| 61 | +* … <!-- numbers of pros and cons can vary --> |
| 62 | + |
| 63 | +=== [option 2] |
| 64 | + |
| 65 | +[example | description | pointer to more information | …] <!-- optional --> |
| 66 | + |
| 67 | +* Good, because [argument a] |
| 68 | +* Good, because [argument b] |
| 69 | +* Bad, because [argument c] |
| 70 | +* … <!-- numbers of pros and cons can vary --> |
| 71 | + |
| 72 | +=== [option 3] |
| 73 | + |
| 74 | +[example | description | pointer to more information | …] <!-- optional --> |
| 75 | + |
| 76 | +* Good, because [argument a] |
| 77 | +* Good, because [argument b] |
| 78 | +* Bad, because [argument c] |
| 79 | +* … <!-- numbers of pros and cons can vary --> |
| 80 | + |
| 81 | +== Links <!-- optional --> |
| 82 | + |
| 83 | +* [Link type] [Link to ADR] <!-- example: Refined by [ADR-0005](0005-example.md) --> |
| 84 | +* … <!-- numbers of links can vary --> |
0 commit comments