Hi all! I did come around and wrote the feedback pending in the KIP itself. Please take another read! I added a section attempting to define the term "usable". Also I applied the feedback.
Thanks! On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 1:34 AM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 > -- [image: Aiven] <https://www.aiven.io> *Josep Prat* Open Source Engineering Director, *Aiven* josep.p...@aiven.io | +491715557497 aiven.io <https://www.aiven.io> | <https://www.facebook.com/aivencloud> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/aiven/> <https://twitter.com/aiven_io> *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* Alexanderufer 3-7, 10117 Berlin Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa, Hannu Valtonen, Anna Richardson, Kenneth Chen Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B
