Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Adding Release Cycle Documentation #3063

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 16, 2024

Conversation

robscott
Copy link
Member

@robscott robscott commented May 8, 2024

What type of PR is this?
/kind documentation

What this PR does / why we need it:
This is a follow up from a doc I shared at the community meeting earlier this week. This builds on that by formally adding it to our documentation.

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

NONE

/hold for consensus

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. kind/documentation Categorizes issue or PR as related to documentation. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels May 8, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: robscott

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. labels May 8, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@youngnick youngnick left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is a great first round - I suspect we may need to add more detail but exactly what that detail is needs us to try this out.

LGTM (but I'll leave the button push for someone else)

site-src/contributing/release-cycle.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
| Major GEP Updates | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ |
| GEP Refinement | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ |
| API Spec Additions | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | ❌ |
| New Conformance Tests | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ |
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Other than being noted here, I don't see a phase that details conformance tests. Are conformance tests optional when adding or updating a GEP?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good question - presently the only requirement for conformance tests is that a minimum of 3 implementations must be passing conformance tests for a GEP to graduate to standard channel. We don't actually require conformance tests when adding new experimental features, but they are encouraged. It can be challenging to write conformance tests without any implementations though.


## Goals

* Ensure a predictable release schedule that enables 2-3 releases a year
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's definitely my longer term goal, but I think we need to try at least one of these structured releases before we can confidently predict dates with that level of precision. The current goal is to set dates for a minimum of 1 phase in advance, but ideally more. Hopefully once we have some experience, we'll be able to set dates for every phase in a release cycle upfront, matching upstream Kubernetes. The biggest thing that could help us would be having people that can help push things forward, especially with this release process.

@robscott
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks to everyone for the feedback! Since v1.2 release cycle is already beginning, we're going to go with lazy consensus here and plan on merging in another 24 hours. Please get any additional feedback in before then.

@youngnick
Copy link
Contributor

/unhold
/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label May 16, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 16, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 58d3eba into kubernetes-sigs:main May 16, 2024
8 checks passed
BobyMCbobs pushed a commit to BobyMCbobs/kubernetes-sigs-gateway-api that referenced this pull request Jul 10, 2024
BobyMCbobs pushed a commit to BobyMCbobs/kubernetes-sigs-gateway-api that referenced this pull request Jul 22, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/documentation Categorizes issue or PR as related to documentation. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants