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
