On Fri, Aug 30, 2024, at 16:40, Matthias J. Sax wrote: > Great discussion. Also wanted to follow up with a few things. > > > I believe the term "usable" is not well defined leading to confusion... > I agree with Viktor that "usable" in the context of level 2 should just > mean: I can enable the feature and it does something... not more, not > less. It might crash; it might compute the wrong result for some cases, > it might have terrible performance, etc... but: I can kick the tires. >
Yeah, it would be good to clarify this, to avoid "usable" becoming too expansive. > > About the proposed "checklist" from Viktor: I think we should not have > anything about testing in it -- that test are required goes w/o saying > and is already covered in the KIP document itself. To me, it's the KIP > author's / community's responsivity to decide on a case-by-case basis > when a feature is considered ready for the next level, and what testing > is sufficient for each level. > > > Similar for docs, even if I agree that docs should be more or less > complete at level 3. Otherwise, users will have a hard time to really > try the feature and thus kinda defeats the purpose of level 3. +1 > > > Last: @Colin, yes we eventually need to pick names for the levels. But I > believe it's actually the right way to agree on the "what" first, and > just say "level X" for now, and only after we agree on the levels, we > enter the ring for the fun part: picking names. This should be the very > last step :popcorn: > Maybe this is just me, but using numbers instead of names makes it quite hard for me to get a handle on the discussion. I have opinions on what alpha / beta / production-ready mean. I don't have opinions on what "Level 4" means or what "manuscript" means. So I feel like we will go around and around until we can give a name to what we're talking about. best, Colin > > > -Matthias > > > > > On 8/30/24 8:57 AM, Colin McCabe wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 26, 2024, at 10:51, Josep Prat wrote: >>> Hi Colin, >>> >>> Names are in the KIP. Level 1 to 4 are never meant to be used outside of >>> this discussion. It's my, apparently successful, attempt to focus on what >>> the levels mean instead of their names: >>> >>>> Names >>> >>> "In Development" >>> "Early Access" >>> "Preview" >>> "Production Ready" >> >> Hi Josep, >> >> Thanks for the clarification. I think we should remove references to level >> 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. if that is not the terminology that we want to use. One of >> the big purposes of a KIP is to standardize on terminology. That's not >> achieved if different parts of the KIP use different names for the same >> things. >> >>> >>> Alternatively, if we want to be a bit more playful we could go with a theme >>> borrowed from the book industry (as an homage to Franz Kafka): >>> >>> "In Development" >>> "Manuscript" >>> "Pre-print" >>> "Published" >>> >>> >> >> The need to standardize terminology also means that, sorry, you have to >> choose. :) This is actually a feedback I often give on KIPs. People like to >> add sections that say "maybe we'll do X, maybe we'll do Y." But to make >> progress on the KIP, you have to choose either X or Y and put the other one >> in the "rejected alternatives" section. >> >> I think our purpose in choosing names should be clarity for users and >> developers. That's why I suggested "not implemented", "alpha", "beta", >> "production ready". I am curious what your thoughts are about these. >> >> best, >> Colin
