design-proposals: Clean template and add feature lifecycle section #343
Conversation
kubevirt-bot
added
the
dco-signoff: yes
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
| ## Feature lifecycle Phases | ||
|
|
||
| (How and when will the feature progress through the Alpha, Beta and GA lifecycle phases) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Awesome to see this!
In order to provide some more guidance, I'd add sub-sections for alpha, beta and GA.
| ## Feature lifecycle Phases | |
| (How and when will the feature progress through the Alpha, Beta and GA lifecycle phases) | |
| ## Feature lifecycle Phases | |
| (How and when will the feature progress through the Alpha, Beta and GA lifecycle phases) | |
| ### Alpha: | |
| ### Beta: | |
| ### GA: |
The Kubernetes KEP template does so with a comment:
#### Alpha
- Feature implemented behind a feature flag
- Initial e2e tests completed and enabled
#### Beta
- Gather feedback from developers and surveys
- Complete features A, B, C
- Additional tests are in Testgrid and linked in KEP
#### GA
- N examples of real-world usage
- N installs
- More rigorous forms of testing—e.g., downgrade tests and scalability tests
- Allowing time for feedback
WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And it should be clear that the phases are not mandatory, e.g. a feature can reach GA directly. Usually if it is trivial.
|
/close @iholder101 thanks for the review but I think folks want to push ahead with the new enhancements approach in v1.5.0 instead now so I'm going to close this out. |
|
@lyarwood: Closed this PR. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
|
/reopen |
|
@lyarwood: Reopened this PR. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
As discussed at the unconference for v1.5.0 [1] we should start documenting the expected lifecycle of a given feature within our design proposals before later moving this tracking to an issue. This change cleans up the template, removing multiple top level headings, adding whitespace around headings and adds a final section defining the lifecycle of a feature. [1] https://unconference.kubevirt.io/D62SngbSRXO1uhTAc8Ikqg#xpivarc-Feature-lifecycleFuture-of-proposals---1-1-1-1 Signed-off-by: Lee Yarwood <[email protected]>
lyarwood
force-pushed
the
design-proposals-lifecycle
branch
from
f7663b9 to
28b72ab
Compare
| ## Feature lifecycle Phases | ||
|
|
||
| (How and when will the feature progress through the Alpha, Beta and GA lifecycle phases) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And it should be clear that the phases are not mandatory, e.g. a feature can reach GA directly. Usually if it is trivial.
|
Pull requests that are marked with After that period the bot marks them with the label /label needs-approver-review |
kubevirt-bot
added
the
needs-approver-review
|
@lyarwood Happy to merge this but it looks like it's still pending suggestions. Did you want to take a quick look? |
|
@aburdenthehand thanks but #362 is really the future of this stuff, @vladikr would you still like me to land this PR ahead of the new repo and template being created? /hold |
kubevirt-bot
added
the
do-not-merge/hold
|
/remove-label needs-approver-review |
kubevirt-bot
removed
the
needs-approver-review
/cc @xpivarc
/cc @vladikr
/cc @EdDev
What this PR does / why we need it:
As discussed at the unconference for v1.5.0 [1] we should start documenting the expected lifecycle of a given feature within our design proposals before later moving this tracking to an issue.
This change cleans up the template, removing multiple top level headings, adding whitespace around headings and adds a final section defining the lifecycle of a feature.
[1] https://unconference.kubevirt.io/D62SngbSRXO1uhTAc8Ikqg#xpivarc-Feature-lifecycleFuture-of-proposals---1-1-1-1
Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in
fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):Fixes #286
Special notes for your reviewer:
Checklist
This checklist is not enforcing, but it's a reminder of items that could be relevant to every PR.
Approvers are expected to review this list.
Release note: