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
