Add support and stability level definitions #9412

jpkrohling · 2022-04-22T19:17:04Z

Proposal for the definition of the stability and support levels. Once we have this in place, I'll add them to a couple of components to be used as example.

Notes:

I thought about adding specific requirements to promote a component from experimental to stable, but in the end, I think code owners should be free to determine when a component is ready to be declared stable
In the support levels, there's a mention that the maintainers are ultimately responsible for all components. This deliberately includes vendor-specific ones, as we might be forced to remove vendor-specific components
To be proposed in the next step, but wanted to give a heads-up: the individual components could list the code owners, so that users know who to ping in case of problems. So, the support is still provided by the maintainers but specific people (non-maintainers) could be pinged directly.

Fixes #9379

Signed-off-by: Juraci Paixão Kröhling juraci@kroehling.de

README.md

jpkrohling · 2022-04-25T19:15:50Z

I believe I addressed all comments, but there are some discussions pending.

README.md

jpkrohling · 2022-04-26T17:36:35Z

Just to make it explicit how I see the lifecycle of a component to be, which would justify the need for only three stability levels:

a component is accepted into this repository and development starts. There might be multiple PRs until the component is ready for consumption. This is the "in development" level.
once the development has been finished, the component owners make the component available for people to start using it and provide feedback. Real world usage starts here, with people reporting bugs and asking for new features (better observability, new capabilities, ...). This is the "experimental" level.
once the component has been in the wild for a while and component owners are confident it is ready for production usage, the component is marked as "stable".

As a user, I'm not sure I see the need for the second stage to be broken down into other stages: the information I need is only whether the component I need is ready for production or not.

TylerHelmuth · 2022-04-26T17:40:06Z

As a user, I'm not sure I see the need for the second stage to be broken down into other stages: the information I need is only whether the component I need is ready for production or not.

I tend to agree. Though if the code owners want to breakdown the Experimental stage into more granular levels within their README somewhere else I think that is ok, as long as it is also marked Experimental in all expected places (top of README, any tables somewhere, etc).

README.md

TylerHelmuth · 2022-04-27T17:38:55Z

As a user, I'm not sure I see the need for the second stage to be broken down into other stages: the information I need is only whether the component I need is ready for production or not.

I tend to agree. Though if the code owners want to breakdown the Experimental stage into more granular levels within their README somewhere else I think that is ok, as long as it is also marked Experimental in all expected places (top of README, any tables somewhere, etc).

Reading through the change from Experimental to Alpha/Beta I actually think I've changed my mind. Alpha and Beta are well defined and Stable is still the indicator that "yes, this is good to use in production". As a customer (especially if I am an early adopter) Alpha and Beta will make it easier to decide which "Experimental" components I would feel comfortable using in production. When it was only "Experimental" I would probably have to dig deeper into the community/code to understand how risky it really is.

README.md

pmm-sumo

I left a comment on core distro wording but overall this LGTM

jpkrohling · 2022-04-28T13:44:42Z

I applies some suggestions but forgot to publish the review comments :-) I have also applied @pmm-sumo's suggestion about the distributions/repositories.

In any case, I think you all have seen the changes already, but I'll give it a few hours for folks to give it a final look.

README.md

dmitryax · 2022-04-28T15:20:07Z

README.md

+
+* **In development**: not all pieces of the component are in place yet and it might not be available as part of any distributions yet. Bugs and performance issues should be reported, but it is likely that the component owners might not give them much attention. Your feedback is still desired, especially when it comes to the user-experience (configuration options, component observability, technical implementation details, ...). Configuration options might break often depending on how things evolve. The component should not be used in production.
+* **Alpha**: the component is ready to be used for limited non-critical workloads and the authors of this component would welcome your feedback. Bugs and performance problems should be reported, but component owners might not work on them right away. The configuration options might change often without backwards compatibility guarantees.
+* **Beta**: same as Alpha, but the configuration options are deemed stable. While there might be breaking changes between releases, component owners should try to minimize them.


Didn't you propose that Beta can be used in production while config might break? #9412 (comment)

I had only the config changes in mind based on previous comments, but we could say that people can have higher confidence in a beta component to run it with more workloads than they'd run with an alpha component. Let me draft something to that effect.

A component at this stage is expected to have had exposure to non-critical production workloads already during its Alpha phase, making it suitable for broader usage.

How about this?

I think that wording is good. I like keeping "Stable" as the only place to official say "this is officially GA".

Although now I'm wondering if instead of "Stable: the component is ready to be used in production." we should say something like "Stable: the component is ready for general availability." The former implies no stage before "Stable" should ever be used in production, but there are times Beta could be used, if you want to take some risk. The later implies this component has had a "production" release, thus making it safe to use.

Makes sense to me

PR updated.

Fixes #9379 Signed-off-by: Juraci Paixão Kröhling <juraci@kroehling.de>

Signed-off-by: Juraci Paixão Kröhling <juraci@kroehling.de>

Co-authored-by: Przemek Maciolek <58699843+pmm-sumo@users.noreply.github.com>

Signed-off-by: Juraci Paixão Kröhling <juraci@kroehling.de>

jpkrohling · 2022-04-29T13:01:57Z

Looks like we have a good number approvals, so I'll go ahead and merge this.

* Add support and stability level definitions Fixes open-telemetry#9379 Signed-off-by: Juraci Paixão Kröhling <juraci@kroehling.de> * Addressed first round of comments Signed-off-by: Juraci Paixão Kröhling <juraci@kroehling.de> * Second review round Signed-off-by: Juraci Paixão Kröhling <juraci@kroehling.de> * Replace experimental with Alpha, added Beta Signed-off-by: Juraci Paixão Kröhling <juraci@kroehling.de> * Replace other experimental instances with alpha Signed-off-by: Juraci Paixão Kröhling <juraci@kroehling.de> * Apply suggestions from code review Co-authored-by: Przemek Maciolek <58699843+pmm-sumo@users.noreply.github.com> * Expand beta description, remove redundant paragraph Signed-off-by: Juraci Paixão Kröhling <juraci@kroehling.de> * Use 'general availability' Signed-off-by: Juraci Paixão Kröhling <juraci@kroehling.de> Co-authored-by: Przemek Maciolek <58699843+pmm-sumo@users.noreply.github.com>

jpkrohling requested review from a team and pmm-sumo April 22, 2022 19:17

github-actions bot assigned dmitryax Apr 22, 2022

jpkrohling added the Skip Changelog PRs that do not require a CHANGELOG.md entry label Apr 22, 2022

bogdandrutu reviewed Apr 22, 2022

View reviewed changes

README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

README.md Show resolved Hide resolved

README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

mx-psi reviewed Apr 25, 2022

View reviewed changes

README.md Show resolved Hide resolved

README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

README.md Show resolved Hide resolved

README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

TylerHelmuth reviewed Apr 25, 2022

View reviewed changes

README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

mx-psi reviewed Apr 26, 2022

View reviewed changes

README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

mx-psi mentioned this pull request Apr 26, 2022

Review components to give users an indication of the level of support #9377

Closed

6 tasks

pmm-sumo reviewed Apr 26, 2022

View reviewed changes

README.md Show resolved Hide resolved

jpkrohling force-pushed the jpkrohling/issue9379 branch from 6a71366 to c7e6936 Compare April 27, 2022 16:59

bogdandrutu reviewed Apr 27, 2022

View reviewed changes

README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

TylerHelmuth reviewed Apr 27, 2022

View reviewed changes

README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

TylerHelmuth reviewed Apr 27, 2022

View reviewed changes

README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pmm-sumo reviewed Apr 27, 2022

View reviewed changes

README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

mx-psi approved these changes Apr 28, 2022

View reviewed changes

pmm-sumo approved these changes Apr 28, 2022

View reviewed changes

bogdandrutu approved these changes Apr 28, 2022

View reviewed changes

jpkrohling force-pushed the jpkrohling/issue9379 branch from 904c94c to 0f8f867 Compare April 28, 2022 14:47

pmm-sumo reviewed Apr 28, 2022

View reviewed changes

README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

dmitryax reviewed Apr 28, 2022

View reviewed changes

Aneurysm9 approved these changes Apr 28, 2022

View reviewed changes

jamesmoessis approved these changes Apr 29, 2022

View reviewed changes

jpkrohling and others added 8 commits April 29, 2022 09:14

Add support and stability level definitions

cb9a063

Fixes #9379 Signed-off-by: Juraci Paixão Kröhling <juraci@kroehling.de>

Addressed first round of comments

3900adf

Signed-off-by: Juraci Paixão Kröhling <juraci@kroehling.de>

Second review round

ee92487

Signed-off-by: Juraci Paixão Kröhling <juraci@kroehling.de>

Replace experimental with Alpha, added Beta

8dff0a6

Signed-off-by: Juraci Paixão Kröhling <juraci@kroehling.de>

Replace other experimental instances with alpha

605c174

Signed-off-by: Juraci Paixão Kröhling <juraci@kroehling.de>

Apply suggestions from code review

10d31e5

Co-authored-by: Przemek Maciolek <58699843+pmm-sumo@users.noreply.github.com>

Expand beta description, remove redundant paragraph

f02eae6

Signed-off-by: Juraci Paixão Kröhling <juraci@kroehling.de>

Use 'general availability'

77c80a3

Signed-off-by: Juraci Paixão Kröhling <juraci@kroehling.de>

jpkrohling force-pushed the jpkrohling/issue9379 branch from 4715eba to 77c80a3 Compare April 29, 2022 12:15

jpkrohling merged commit 033bc94 into open-telemetry:main Apr 29, 2022

djaglowski mentioned this pull request May 2, 2022

collector does not include nginx receiver open-telemetry/opentelemetry-collector-releases#108

Closed

ahayworth mentioned this pull request May 16, 2022

Update to otel-contrib-col v0.51.0 Shopify/opentelemetry-collector-contrib#796

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add support and stability level definitions #9412

Add support and stability level definitions #9412

jpkrohling commented Apr 22, 2022

jpkrohling commented Apr 25, 2022

jpkrohling commented Apr 26, 2022

TylerHelmuth commented Apr 26, 2022

TylerHelmuth commented Apr 27, 2022

pmm-sumo left a comment

jpkrohling commented Apr 28, 2022

dmitryax Apr 28, 2022

jpkrohling Apr 28, 2022

jpkrohling Apr 28, 2022

TylerHelmuth Apr 28, 2022

TylerHelmuth Apr 28, 2022 •

edited

Loading

jpkrohling Apr 28, 2022

jpkrohling Apr 28, 2022

jpkrohling commented Apr 29, 2022

Add support and stability level definitions #9412

Add support and stability level definitions #9412

Conversation

jpkrohling commented Apr 22, 2022

jpkrohling commented Apr 25, 2022

jpkrohling commented Apr 26, 2022

TylerHelmuth commented Apr 26, 2022

TylerHelmuth commented Apr 27, 2022

pmm-sumo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jpkrohling commented Apr 28, 2022

dmitryax Apr 28, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jpkrohling Apr 28, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jpkrohling Apr 28, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

TylerHelmuth Apr 28, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

TylerHelmuth Apr 28, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jpkrohling Apr 28, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jpkrohling Apr 28, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jpkrohling commented Apr 29, 2022

TylerHelmuth Apr 28, 2022 •

edited

Loading