Thanks David,
I would be perfectly fine having: - Level 2: Experimental (draft and unstable might be too scary) - Level 3: Preview - Level 4: Production Ready PS: I know this is not how KIPs are usually discussed, but names are really special and this is something I feel the community needs to generally agree with or at least be comfortable with. Best, On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 4:53 PM David Arthur <mum...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not sure why, but for some reason I cannot keep Preview and Early > Access straight. I always mix them up. > > "Early Access" -- you are getting access to something early > > "Preview" -- you are viewing something in advance > > To me, semantically, these terms are just too similar. I would prefer the > Level 2 term to indicate that the thing is not ready yet. Things like > "draft", "experimental", and "unstable" come to mind. > > In fact, a quick google search reveals that the gaming industry uses "Early > Access" and "Preview" interchangeably :) > > -David > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 8:09 AM Andrew Schofield < > andrew_schofield_j...@outlook.com> wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > -- > David Arthur > -- [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
