kubevela
rfcs
kubevela | rfcs | |
---|---|---|
28 | 666 | |
6,123 | 5,711 | |
2.0% | 0.9% | |
8.7 | 9.8 | |
8 days ago | 5 days ago | |
Go | Markdown | |
Apache License 2.0 | Apache License 2.0 |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
kubevela
- Open-source alternative to Heroku, Vercel, and Netlify
- Is there any Django app deployment tool for VPS-based environments with UI?
- What's the status of Open Application Model?
-
Using compose files as a universal infrastructure interface, even for Kubernetes
Finally, I think the OAM model offers one possible future. Take a look at projects like KubeVela and Crossplane. These allow you to compose your own custom abstraction layer. The developer creates a simple CRD called "Application" and this is translated into ths k8s or even off-cluster resources. Problem right now is the complexity is transferred onto guys configuring the platform..... I want to see more "out of the box" implementations.
- Helm or Kustomize for my situation?
- KubeVela, the extensible engine for IDP and platform engineering
-
Opinionated application platform on top of Kubernetes?
Gotcha, thanks! We already run ArgoCD but having devs write raw manifests feels so low-level when it’s usually the same combo of configmaps, ingresses, services, deployments… Maybe this is more in the direction of what I’m looking for? 🤔 https://kubevela.io
-
Finding better motivations for software work (Other than pride)
Note: On that topic, I'm keeping a close eye on the Open Application Model and the kubevela projects. I think it’ll help write a representation of an application and its components that we can validate the structure of our code against, and generate documentation from it. Not a complete solution to the problem, but it'll help with certain parts of architecture documentation
- Kubevela - The modern application platform.
-
Clusterpedia —— Cluster API Searching Has Never Been Easier
Also, kubevela is getting ready to connect to clusterpedia https://github.com/kubevela/kubevela/issues/4237,
rfcs
-
Ask HN: What April Fools jokes have you noticed this year?
RFC: Add large language models to Rust
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3603
- Rust to add large language models to the standard library
-
Why does Rust choose not to provide `for` comprehensions?
Man, SO and family has really gone downhill. That top answer is absolutely terrible. In fact, if you care, you can literally look at the RFC discussion here to see the actual debate: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/582
Basically, `for x in y` is kind of redundant, already sorta-kinda supported by itertools, and there's also a ton of macros that sorta-kinda do it already. It would just be language bloat at this point.
Literally has nothing to do with memory management.
- Coroutines in C
-
Uv: Python Packaging in Rust
Congrats!
> Similarly, uv does not yet generate a platform-agnostic lockfile. This matches pip-tools, but differs from Poetry and PDM, making uv a better fit for projects built around the pip and pip-tools workflows.
Do you expect to make the higher level workflow independent of requirements.txt / support a platform-agnostic lockfile? Being attached to Rye makes me think "no".
Without being platform agnostic, to me this is dead-on-arrival and unable to meet the "Cargo for Python" aim.
> uv supports alternate resolution strategies. By default, uv follows the standard Python dependency resolution strategy of preferring the latest compatible version of each package. But by passing --resolution=lowest, library authors can test their packages against the lowest-compatible version of their dependencies. (This is similar to Go's Minimal version selection.)
> uv allows for resolutions against arbitrary target Python versions. While pip and pip-tools always resolve against the currently-installed Python version (generating, e.g., a Python 3.12-compatible resolution when running under Python 3.12), uv accepts a --python-version parameter, enabling you to generate, e.g., Python 3.7-compatible resolutions even when running under newer versions.
This is great to see though!
I can understand it being a flag on these lower level, directly invoked dependency resolution operations.
While you aren't onto the higher level operations yet, I think it'd be useful to see if there is any cross-ecosystem learning we can do for my MSRV RFC: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3537
How are you handling pre-releases in you resolution? Unsure how much of that is specified in PEPs. Its something that Cargo is weak in today but we're slowly improving.
- RFC: Rust Has Provenance
-
The bane of my existence: Supporting both async and sync code in Rust
In the early days of Rust there was a debate about whether to support "green threads" and in doing that require runtime support. It was actually implemented and included for a time but it creates problems when trying to do library or embedded code. At the time Go for example chose to go that route, and it was both nice (goroutines are nice to write and well supported) and expensive (effectively requires GC etc). I don't remember the details but there is a Rust RFC from when they removed green threads:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/0806be4f282144cfcd55b...
-
Why stdout is faster than stderr?
I did some more digging. By RFC 899, I believe Alex Crichton meant PR 899 in this repo:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/899
Still, no real discussion of why unbuffered stderr.
- Go: What We Got Right, What We Got Wrong
-
Ask HN: What's the fastest programming language with a large standard library?
Rust has had a stable SIMD vector API[1] for a long time. But, it's architecture specific. The portable API[2] isn't stable yet, but you probably can't use the portable API for some of the more exotic uses of SIMD anyway. Indeed, that's true in .NET's case too[3].
Rust does all this SIMD too. It just isn't in the standard library. But the regex crate does it. Indeed, this is where .NET got its SIMD approach for multiple substring search from in the first place[4]. ;-)
You're right that Rust's standard library is conservatively vectorized though[5]. The main thing blocking this isn't the lack of SIMD availability. It's more about how the standard library is internally structured, and the fact that things like substring search are not actually defined in `std` directly, but rather, in `core`. There are plans to fix this[6].
[1]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/arch/index.html
[2]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/simd/index.html
[3]: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/72fae0073b35a404f03c3...
[4]: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pull/88394#issuecomment-16...
[5]: https://github.com/BurntSushi/memchr#why-is-the-standard-lib...
[6]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3469
What are some alternatives?
crossplane - The Cloud Native Control Plane
rust - Empowering everyone to build reliable and efficient software.
argo-cd - Declarative Continuous Deployment for Kubernetes
bubblewrap - Low-level unprivileged sandboxing tool used by Flatpak and similar projects
kustomize - Customization of kubernetes YAML configurations
crates.io - The Rust package registry
rancher - Complete container management platform
polonius - Defines the Rust borrow checker.
Dokku - A docker-powered PaaS that helps you build and manage the lifecycle of applications
Rust-for-Linux - Adding support for the Rust language to the Linux kernel.
porter - Kubernetes powered PaaS that runs in your own cloud.
rust-gc - Simple tracing (mark and sweep) garbage collector for Rust