📖 Add additional context around experiment lifecycle #2974
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
cncf-cla: yes
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: detiber The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
|
/hold holding for feedback and larger community consensus. |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
do-not-merge/hold
|
This is a followup based on discussion related to #2940 |
CONTRIBUTING.md
Outdated
| - Experiments follow a strict lifecycle: Alpha -> Beta -> GA. | ||
| - Alpha-stage experiments SHOULD not be enabled by default. | ||
| - Inactive or outdated experiments will be deprecated and removed from the codebase, as outlined in Kubernetes deprecation policy | ||
| - Experiments follow a strict lifecycle: Early -> Late -> Promoted. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My comments from the other PR might have get lost, the library we're currently using (component-base) defines these phases as Alpha -> Beta -> GA, that's why that was written that way.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Indeed, I tried to take that into account with the clarifications below around feature gates.
I do think there is value in trying to differentiate our wording here to avoid user/consumer confusion over what support means for Alpha/Beta/GA for experiments compared to non-experimental use.
More than happy to make additional changes here based on feedback and general consensus, though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@detiber thanks for this PR!
I missed the original comment, but this is definitely a step in the right direction
CONTRIBUTING.md
Outdated
| - Experiments follow a strict lifecycle: Alpha -> Beta -> GA. | ||
| - Alpha-stage experiments SHOULD not be enabled by default. | ||
| - Inactive or outdated experiments will be deprecated and removed from the codebase, as outlined in Kubernetes deprecation policy | ||
| - Experiments follow a strict lifecycle: Early -> Late -> Promoted. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IMO we should stick to Alfa/Beta/GA and avoid to introduce a new classification
CONTRIBUTING.md
Outdated
| - Early-stage experiments: | ||
| - SHOULD not be enabled by default and any feature gates MUST be marked as 'Alpha' | ||
| - MUST be associated with a CAEP that is merged and in at least a provisional state | ||
| - MAY be considered inactive and eligible for removal if it does not graduate to Late-stage after 3 minor releases or 1 year, whichever is greater. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that for alpha experiment the deprecation cycle should be shorter (1 minor release)
CONTRIBUTING.md
Outdated
| - MUST be associated with a CAEP that is at least in the experimental state | ||
| - MUST support conversions for any type changes | ||
| - MUST remain backwards compatible unless updates are coinciding with a breaking Cluster API release | ||
| - MAY be considered inactive and eligible for demotion back to Early-stage if it does not graduate to Promoted after 3 minor releases or 1 year, whichever is greater. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that beta experiment should either be removed (after 2 minors deprecation period) or graduate. Given the two options, I'm not sure we must enforce a max time before graduation.
CONTRIBUTING.md
Outdated
| - MUST support conversions for any type changes | ||
| - MUST remain backwards compatible unless updates are coinciding with a breaking Cluster API release | ||
| - MAY be considered inactive and eligible for demotion back to Early-stage if it does not graduate to Promoted after 3 minor releases or 1 year, whichever is greater. | ||
| - Promoted experiments: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that an experiment is promoted when it becomes part of the main codebase, so IMO this state should not exist and the underlying list should be transformed into a graduation checklist
detiber
changed the title
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
k8s-ci-robot
added
size/M
|
@fabriziopandini @vincepri ptal, went ahead and reverted back to Alpha/Beta and tried to be a bit more explicit around deprecation/deletion policies. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@detiber thanks, I really like this new version because it enables quick iterations and it makes clear the needs of active support around experiments
/lgtm
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
detiber
changed the title
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
|
@michaelgugino did you want to take a look before we merge these guidelines for experiments? |
|
/milestone v0.3.6 |
|
/hold cancel |
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
do-not-merge/hold
What this PR does / why we need it: