supported-platform: define platform support tiers based on CI #273
Conversation
|
Thanks for let me know, will work on this. |
Signed-off-by: Gyuho Lee <[email protected]>
| | 386 | Linux | Unstable | | | ||
| | ppc64le | Linux | Stable | etcd maintainers, @mkumatag | | ||
| | amd64 | Linux | Tier-1 | etcd maintainers | | ||
| | arm64 | Linux | Tier-2 | @gyuho, @glevand | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It may be a good idea to make the GitHub usernames in this table links to those users.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Furthermore, if you make etcd maintainers into a link, then you can eliminate the "footnote" (which is what I'd suggest).
|
|
||
| Experimental platforms appear to work in practice and have some platform specific code in etcd, but do not fully conform to the stable support policy. Unstable platforms have been lightly tested, but less than experimental. Unlisted architecture and operating system pairs are currently unsupported; caveat emptor. | ||
| Tier-1 platforms are fully supported by etcd maintainers and required to pass all tests including functional tests. Tier-2 platforms appear to work in practice but may have some platform specific code in etcd and not fully conform to the stable support policy. To qualify for Tier-2, the platform must pass integration and end-to-end tests in CI (see [github PR](https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/pull/12928) for adding arm64). Tier-3 platforms or unlisted architectures are either lightly tested or have no testing in place, thus unstable and currently unsupported; caveat emptor. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A quick copy-edit pass here. I'd also suggest using bold to set off the tier descriptions to help scannability.
| Tier-1 platforms are fully supported by etcd maintainers and required to pass all tests including functional tests. Tier-2 platforms appear to work in practice but may have some platform specific code in etcd and not fully conform to the stable support policy. To qualify for Tier-2, the platform must pass integration and end-to-end tests in CI (see [github PR](https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/pull/12928) for adding arm64). Tier-3 platforms or unlisted architectures are either lightly tested or have no testing in place, thus unstable and currently unsupported; caveat emptor. | |
| *Tier-1* platforms are fully supported by etcd maintainers and are required to pass all tests including functional ones. *Tier-2* platforms appear to work in practice but may have some platform specific code in etcd and may not fully conform to the stable support policy. To qualify for Tier-2, the platform must pass integration and end-to-end tests in the CI system (see [GitHub PR](https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/pull/12928) for adding arm64). *Tier-3* platforms, or unlisted architectures, are either lightly tested or have no testing in place, and are thus unstable and currently unsupported; caveat emptor. |
| @@ -8,29 +8,29 @@ description: etcd support status for common architectures & operating systems | |||
|
|
|||
| The following table lists etcd support status for common architectures and operating systems: | |||
|
|
|||
| | Architecture | Operating System | Status | Maintainers | | |||
| | Architecture | Operating System | Support Tier | Maintainers | | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- The Support Tier column only lists tier levels, so the column values can be just numbers. That is, in the table, I'd suggest replacing Tier-x simply by x.
- It might make more sense to sort the table rows on the Architecture column -- currently it seems sorted on tier (but a reader is more likely to be looking for a specific architecture than a tier).
|
|
||
| Experimental platforms appear to work in practice and have some platform specific code in etcd, but do not fully conform to the stable support policy. Unstable platforms have been lightly tested, but less than experimental. Unlisted architecture and operating system pairs are currently unsupported; caveat emptor. | ||
| Tier-1 platforms are fully supported by etcd maintainers and required to pass all tests including functional tests. Tier-2 platforms appear to work in practice but may have some platform specific code in etcd and not fully conform to the stable support policy. To qualify for Tier-2, the platform must pass integration and end-to-end tests in CI (see [github PR](https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/pull/12928) for adding arm64). Tier-3 platforms or unlisted architectures are either lightly tested or have no testing in place, thus unstable and currently unsupported; caveat emptor. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that this paragraph would be easier to read (and it would be easier to "zoom in" on a specific tier's description), if you'd structure it as a bulleted list, with one list item per tier.
|
Line 41, from the "Unsupported systems" section, and quited below, is redundant / even misleading, and should be removed:
|
|
@gyuho - if you prefer, this PR can be accepted as is. After it's merged, Nate or I can make a more complete pass of the prose from a tech writer's pov. |
Sure, let's make it easy by merging it as it is. Please feel free to make changes afterwards. |
Will do via #276. |
|
And thanks for upvoting the changes that you agreed with. |
Updating https://etcd.io/docs/v3.4/op-guide/supported-platform/ for 3.5.
@mkumatag Please rework on ppc64le support with the self-hosted runner for github action. Once integration tests are passing, we can promote it to Tier-2.
Example for arm64 etcd-io/etcd#12928.