|
Apologies
Sorry folks, I've got a conflict for tomorrow's TOC meeting, and I will have to skip this one
Liz
Sorry folks, I've got a conflict for tomorrow's TOC meeting, and I will have to skip this one
Liz
|
By
Liz Rice
·
#5611
·
|
|
Re: [EXTERNAL] [cncf-toc] What do we mean by “Version 1.0”?
I think that's the heart of the confusion / expectation that I'm seeing. (Or even more precisely that anything under v1.0 is seen by many as not production-ready.) Ack that not every project sees it
I think that's the heart of the confusion / expectation that I'm seeing. (Or even more precisely that anything under v1.0 is seen by many as not production-ready.) Ack that not every project sees it
|
By
Liz Rice
·
#5610
·
|
|
Re: [EXTERNAL] [cncf-toc] What do we mean by “Version 1.0”?
if CNCF wants to help, then publish some guidelines. Or, people will just do their own thing.
if CNCF wants to help, then publish some guidelines. Or, people will just do their own thing.
|
By
alexis richardson
·
#5609
·
|
|
Re: [EXTERNAL] [cncf-toc] What do we mean by “Version 1.0”?
Let's face it. Most uses of x.y.z aren't SemVer and most people
haven't read the spec :)
I think something about graduated projects having a documented policy
around versioning is probably
Let's face it. Most uses of x.y.z aren't SemVer and most people
haven't read the spec :)
I think something about graduated projects having a documented policy
around versioning is probably
|
By
Gareth Rushgrove
·
#5608
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Open Policy Agent from incubating to graduated
+1 nb 💜
Kind Regards,
Bartek Płotka (@bwplotka)
+1 nb 💜
Kind Regards,
Bartek Płotka (@bwplotka)
|
By
Bartłomiej Płotka
·
#5607
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Open Policy Agent from incubating to graduated
+1 binding
Justin
By
Justin Cormack
·
#5606
·
|
|
Re: [EXTERNAL] [cncf-toc] What do we mean by “Version 1.0”?
I agree that it should be about setting the bar for the release management, API backwards compatibility, clearly defined versioning scheme and communications around it in Gradulation requirements.
I agree that it should be about setting the bar for the release management, API backwards compatibility, clearly defined versioning scheme and communications around it in Gradulation requirements.
|
By
Alena Prokharchyk
·
#5605
·
|
|
Re: [EXTERNAL] [cncf-toc] What do we mean by “Version 1.0”?
I think there is some nuance in here but it's worth discussing.
For example, if a project is using SemVer there are a couple parts of the spec that come to mind...
If a project doesn't have a 1.0.0
I think there is some nuance in here but it's worth discussing.
For example, if a project is using SemVer there are a couple parts of the spec that come to mind...
If a project doesn't have a 1.0.0
|
By
Matt Farina
·
#5604
·
|
|
Re: [EXTERNAL] [cncf-toc] What do we mean by “Version 1.0”?
IMO, everyone's using version numbers in different ways now. For example many projects go to 1.0 once they are feature complete, and hit production way before that. I think insisting on 1.0 for
IMO, everyone's using version numbers in different ways now. For example many projects go to 1.0 once they are feature complete, and hit production way before that. I think insisting on 1.0 for
|
By
alexis richardson
·
#5603
·
|
|
Re: [EXTERNAL] [cncf-toc] What do we mean by “Version 1.0”?
I'm not convinced that in people's minds, or practically, v1.0 and Graduated mean similar things. As a concrete example, Kubernetes went to v 1.0 several years before it graduated. In my mind,
I'm not convinced that in people's minds, or practically, v1.0 and Graduated mean similar things. As a concrete example, Kubernetes went to v 1.0 several years before it graduated. In my mind,
|
By
Quinton Hoole <quinton@...>
·
#5602
·
|
|
Re: [EXTERNAL] [cncf-toc] What do we mean by “Version 1.0”?
+1 imo a graduated project should have some documented backward compatibility guarantees and semantic versioning helps denote this. It has been a best practice on all the projects I've worked on. I'd
+1 imo a graduated project should have some documented backward compatibility guarantees and semantic versioning helps denote this. It has been a best practice on all the projects I've worked on. I'd
|
By
Michelle Noorali
·
#5601
·
|
|
What do we mean by “Version 1.0”?
Hi folks,
Someone I spoke with today said something along the lines “if <this project> is stable, why is it still at v0.something?” and that got me thinking - does it make any sense to expect
Hi folks,
Someone I spoke with today said something along the lines “if <this project> is stable, why is it still at v0.something?” and that got me thinking - does it make any sense to expect
|
By
Liz Rice
·
#5600
·
|
|
Re: SIG-Security Tech Lead nominations
RESULT:
SIG Security Tech Leads: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/5558
7/10 - passes!
Liz Rice: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/5564
Justin Cormack:
RESULT:
SIG Security Tech Leads: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/5558
7/10 - passes!
Liz Rice: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/5564
Justin Cormack:
|
By
Amye Scavarda Perrin
·
#5599
·
|
|
Re: SIG-Security Tech Lead nominations
+1 NB
Best Regards,
Magno Logan
@magnologan
+1 NB
Best Regards,
Magno Logan
@magnologan
|
By
Magno Logan <magno.logan@...>
·
#5598
·
|
|
Re: Public comment period for Ambassador
Ah, ok. Sorry, my mistake!
Ah, ok. Sorry, my mistake!
|
By
Liz Rice
·
#5597
·
|
|
Re: SIG-Security Tech Lead nominations
+1 binding
By
Matt Klein
·
#5596
·
|
|
Re: Public comment period for Ambassador
It wasn't in the sandbox, they went straight for incubation: https://github.com/datawire/ambassador
I know it can be confusing as they were originally considered a sandbox contribution but decided to
It wasn't in the sandbox, they went straight for incubation: https://github.com/datawire/ambassador
I know it can be confusing as they were originally considered a sandbox contribution but decided to
|
By
Chris Aniszczyk
·
#5595
·
|
|
Re: SIG-Security Tech Lead nominations
+1 binding
By
Michelle Noorali <michelle.noorali@...>
·
#5594
·
|
|
Re: Public comment period for Ambassador
This question is probably six months too late, but didn't CNCF own the Ambasaador trademark (since the project joined Sandbox)?
This question is probably six months too late, but didn't CNCF own the Ambasaador trademark (since the project joined Sandbox)?
|
By
Liz Rice
·
#5593
·
|
|
Re: Public comment period for Ambassador
Personally I disagree that this is akin to asking for a license change.
The name is an intrinsic part of the project. It is the primary key for the community. This feels more like accepting a fork
Personally I disagree that this is akin to asking for a license change.
The name is an intrinsic part of the project. It is the primary key for the community. This feels more like accepting a fork
|
By
Joe Beda
·
#5592
·
|