Remaining concern about the duplication of the environment variables. Diminishes the role of the module descriptor and its independence. There is an environment variable policy already in place; this would leave only module permissions in the module descriptor.
Interest in making sure whatever is put in place can be overwritten for testing.
May be better served by two RFCs with one focusing on configuration changes and the release process. They do not need to be the same.
Does the RFC need to be redone if the release process needs to be changed?
Core of this RFC is the configuration file. Concern it would premature to approve the configuration file without approving a process for maintaining the file itself.
Intention is to create a singular JSON file where all configuration is gathered.
Release notes are generated from the new configuration file, but which release notes? Module level release notes for any release, flower or CSP.
Which repo? Consensus in discussion around module repo.
Deployment workflow - who will update the Helm chart? Kitfox maintains folio-helm-v2.
RFC needs clarification about when the development workflow needs to be followed, especially in the case of self-hosted development environments. @Mikita Siadykh will add clarification to the RFC.
Continue discussion at Monday or Wednesday TC meeting.