Hi all, I started a VOTE thread for this KIP: https://lists.apache.org/thread/rblzdcwjx3fvm09ob67zzn5qyrhp6w94
Thanks! On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 2:35 AM Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> wrote: > I also never like "early access" and "preview" as I think they are too > similar. (And frankly: I personally always felt that "preview" should be > before "early access", ie, the exact opposite of how we used it in the > past :D) > > I do like "experimental", "preview"" and "production ready", and would > also be ok with "experimental, "early access", and "production ready". > > > -Matthias > > On 10/2/24 8:15 AM, Josep Prat wrote: > > 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
