-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 515
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Proposal: Move the OpenCost UI into a separate repository #2468
Comments
I've not really seen this done with other CNCF projects that have similar components, e.g. Prometheus. Are there examples that you feel the project should aim to follow? |
Another point for splitting, we merged a CVE dependency fix for the UI that won't ship until we do an OpenCost release. Splitting them would allow independent releases. |
Another benefit pointed out by @cliffcolvin would be we can have separate maintainers for the UI and the OpenCost cost model. It will reduce the number of issues for |
I am very much pro split. Having these decoupled would be very helpful for onboarding different skill sets from the community |
I support the split. |
I support the split as well. |
I think this is a pretty good move @dwbrown2. There are some benefits here and no change to end-user experience. The docker containers are already split and have been as long as I've been around and helm users will still deploy a combined helm package. |
The OpenCost UI releases are currently tied to releasing OpenCost. Separating them would allow independent releases, separate maintainers, and different build and testing frameworks. The UI accesses the OpenCost API, so they're not really tightly coupled by any means. Kubecost Engineering is not usually involved with the OpenCost UI, this would potentially open it up to more external contributors and a quicker release cadence.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: