Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
sig-release: Add release cadence KEP #2567
sig-release: Add release cadence KEP #2567
Changes from 22 commits
cfe59ef
31da696
5f121c9
4c0f38c
ef250f7
be9f769
4de2c8c
52a8280
e02b8dd
9ef45b6
233c2cc
b668922
f625168
15a626a
e2d5d96
92c1c2d
854ffb5
0502c94
03fe45e
b527823
d4f878a
995ab88
90bc266
3fc92e1
0183839
9d65c63
7e1b190
3a1e6c4
43b1908
1d9d76f
0def15c
d696d32
41d22d3
2887453
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
who will be surveyed? and specifically when? If we wait until the 3rd release is finished to do a survey and people aren't happy, that doesn't leave a lot of time to properly announce that the next cycle may be changed and we end up back in a 2 week discussion/notification predicament again.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm torn on the survey now, because of the points you have raised (and some others).
Does the community even have an effective way to conduct such a survey that would be fully inclusive and not leave out end users and contributors who are not plugged in?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not that I know of, but could definitely survey all SIGs/SIG leads and send survey to k-dev at a min?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
On top of those issues - many end-users won't be caught up, so the overall quality-of-life impact may not yet be known.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we can drop the survey stuff from this KEP, it is for setting up a
Schedule Policy
so let's leave it at that pleaseThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@jeremyrickard Do we want to pick one way or another and resolve this discussion please?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In regards to comments from @jberkus and @liggitt (#2567 (comment)), I think that this should be defined more precisely. I think that choosing something like December 10th (as proposed by @liggitt) makes sense.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As noted above I think the timing of the feedback survey needs to be fleshed out a bit. I worry about it happening between releases (does that mean it's going to affect the next one? or the one after for a notice period?).
Also if the new cadence begins with 1.22, that would mean we'd potentially be changing cadence back in mid 2022? Feels like in that case taking stock towards the end of 1.23 (EOY release) would make more sense to move forward in 2023 with a solid plan for the entire year?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
IMO we need approvers from more than just sig release on this
Arch, api machinery, and node come to mind as primarily impacted by what this means for api changes, deprecation policies and skew support
Testing as another horizontal sig that is impacted by this change
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@spiffxp -- We agreed in a SIG Leads meeting that SIG Release had
/approve
here, with review from SIG Arch + Testing.Happy to move a rep from each into the
approver
column, but not to expand the participating groups beyond was already agreed to.Everyone is welcome to leave feedback and
milestone-maintainers
are tagged here, but the target reviewers/approvers are listed here: #2567 (comment)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do you have a link to meeting minutes recording this decision?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@spiffxp -- I believe this was decided in the 1/12 leads meetings, which is linked in the Implementation History section and bookmarked here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jio9rEtYxlBbntF8mRGmj6Q1JAdzZ9fTDo3ru1HK_LI/edit#bookmark=id.val5alfdahlr
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm having trouble finding a written record of the decision in there?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
fwiw, I am fine with this KEP from a SIG Arch and SIG Node perspective if it addresses the following:
other issues related to operation of sig-release itself would defer to sig-release.
would let @dims @johnbelamaric @dchen1107 weigh in as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree with @derekwaynecarr 's take on this.
If there is language in any of our docs around skews that will be affected, please do a quick scan and point them out as well please.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@justaugustus The chairs/TL monthly meeting is designed for information sharing, and discussion. It is not intended as a decision making vehicle as there are two meetings (not everyone can attend both), and they are unrecorded.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you for highlighting that @cblecker, we've taken that feedback and will ensure future things are not approached in a similar manner.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Per this sequence in the KEP, the plan is to actually have a 4-month release cycle in 1.25. @jeremyrickard if you want it to be earlier, you need to propose a change in this section (which we'll then argue about).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hey Josh, my understanding around this point and the 1.25 date was essentially this:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So that wasn't at all clear to many people, including several of those who commented on the KEP. As a result, you cannot assume that a +1 on the KEP is actually a +1 on changing the schedule in 2021, since many people (including me) +1'd it thinking that GA was when the schedule would actually change. This means that you need to check support for the timing now as a separate issue.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
And hey, I wanna say sorry for putting this on you, I know you didn't pick the timeline for either the proposed change or the date the KEP was filed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What do milestones and stages even mean in the context of a process KEP?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the milestones and stages are not well aligned for process related KEPs. I think the only real prior art here was LTS and in that case per @jberkus:
It is probably worth formalizing this for future process related things.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A similar KEP in terms of it being about a process change: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/tree/master/keps/sig-docs/1326-third-party-content-in-docs
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for that extra data point @sftim 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd suggest the KEPs can accomodate this process change if we use alpha as a socialization period where all affected parties are advised, etc.. it would function like a feature gate, it's not on yet, but we're letting you know the intention to make it default exists. Beta would be the initial rollout and then gathering feedback after the test period to make the final decision if it is going to be GA (ie the new default cadence)