wip: remove excess in template

[codyshoffner]

Description

• Looking into reworking some of the structure of the template. Would like feedback on much of these changes.
• I removed much of what I think is unnecessary noise, IMO. I can be convinced to add things back in that show value, but I feel most of these values get delete anyway by the package integrator.
• I would prefer a system where if we need comments in the template, they refer to established docs / examples.

Still to do:

• Delete the CODEOWNERS-template.md and README-template.md and replace with some documentation in the docs folder.
• Maybe not feasible, but would like to entertain a solution where CI can run.

[codyshoffner]

I can also see an instance where we remove the different flavor components as well and let the integrator add them in as required. Not every package will have 3 flavors, plus I could see it cutting down on noise for a newer integrator.

[nywilken]

Commented out code without clear indicators that it is meant to serve as documentation to me reads as cruft or WIPs. Which is not a decision that is helpful to put on the consumers. Given that this is a template repo having links in the README that points back to the docs and working examples would be a good replacement IMO.

That said, I am in favor of deleting if it feels like noise to you.

[michalszynkiewicz]

can we add some variable to reference-package's uds-config.yaml to serve as an example instead of this?

[codyshoffner]

what if the README links to the reference-package and dev's could reference those files as needed?

[michalszynkiewicz]

for me, when working on a package from template, the amount of things was overwhelming at first. I'm wondering if adding things - like the variables example, and other examplish things that are getting rightfully removed from the template, aren't worth adding to the reference-package.

[codyshoffner]

for me, when working on a package from template, the amount of things was overwhelming at first. I'm wondering if adding things - like the variables example, and other examplish things that are getting rightfully removed from the template, aren't worth adding to the reference-package.

@michalszynkiewicz, I feel that most of, if not all of the things being removed here are already exemplified in the reference-package.

[fingermustache]

I can also see an instance where we remove the different flavor components as well and let the integrator add them in as required. Not every package will have 3 flavors, plus I could see it cutting down on noise for a newer integrator.

I had similar thoughts, especially with an example of multiple flavors in the reference-package. The downside I can see is confusion on the standard for when a Unicorn creates a new package. Unicorn flavor was a big marketing piece and registry1 is a big plus for certain mission heros.

My vote:

• remove all flavors except upstream
• document the Unicorn eng flavor expectation elsewhere (maybe docs packaging-requirements?)

[fingermustache]

Some items for consideration:

• Deleting makes sense if we have ref in the README (probably an obvious comment) for:
  • uds docs (in general)
  • reference-package
  • packaging-requirements docs with a highlight "These requirements are mandatory for Defense Unicorns engineers"
• Request some volunteers to interview for feedback, wholistically on what is "noise" in template, useful/missing in the reference-package (Austen's push for feedback loops), maybe aim to include different personas
  • new to packaging/uds
  • delivery eng who develops packages