Hi Josep, Thanks for applying the first coat of paint 🙂 Personally, I think the names you propose are good choices. We have precedent already and the sequence is pretty clear based on the names themselves.
Thanks, Andrew ________________________________________ From: Josep Prat <josep.p...@aiven.io.INVALID> Sent: 02 October 2024 09:10 To: dev@kafka.apache.org <dev@kafka.apache.org> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-1081: Graduation Steps for Features Hi all, I think the discussion regarding the steps has winded down and we've reached a good enough consensus. With that out of the way, we can now start to paint our bike shed, a.k.a. choose the names for each phase. As we mentioned, step number 1 is virtual and doesn't really need a name. Step 2's name is: "Early Access" Step 3's name is: "Preview" Step 4's name is: "Production Ready" These names are aligned with what we've been using up until now. Let's now discuss the suitability of these names. Thanks! On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 5:34 PM Josep Prat <josep.p...@aiven.io> wrote: > 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 > -- [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
