Re: revisiting our graduation criteria and process
I think “production ready” has a lot to do with known, accurate and well-documented limitations, as opposed to no limitations at all, or vague claims, or an absolute set of metrics that need to be met (e.g. around scalability) for all projects.
As a contrived concrete example, a project that reliably and demonstrably scales to say 100 nodes, and clearly publishes data supporting that fact, might be perfectly production-ready for a user that has no intention of ever exceeding that scale for their use of that project (and vastly more appealing than another project that makes vague and exaggerated claims about scalability, which turn out not to be true in practical use cases).
For that reason I like the CII model, which is more about clearing articulating what’s there, and what’s not, than it is about checking off a bunch of “must-have" checkboxes. Clearly there will be at least a few “must-have” checkboxes, but I think there will be vastly more “do we understand and clearly document this limitation” type items. And then the overall question around whether, given the known limitations, a project is useful for a sufficiently significant set of production use cases.
Until now, we have tended to use the number and size of claimed or actual production use cases as an approximation of the answer to the aforementioned question.
From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io" <briangrant=google.com@...>
Reply-To: "briangrant@..." <briangrant@...>
Date: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 12:34
To: cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] revisiting our graduation criteria and process