Skip to content
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

📖 book: set v1.1.x EOL date #7146

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 7, 2022

Conversation

sbueringer
Copy link
Member

@sbueringer sbueringer commented Sep 1, 2022

Signed-off-by: Stefan Büringer buringerst@vmware.com

What this PR does / why we need it:
As discussed in the office hours.

I would take care of the next v1.1.x and v1.2.x release in ~ 2 weeks.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
Fixes #

Signed-off-by: Stefan Büringer buringerst@vmware.com
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Sep 1, 2022
@sbueringer
Copy link
Member Author

/cherry-pick release-1.2

@k8s-infra-cherrypick-robot

@sbueringer: once the present PR merges, I will cherry-pick it on top of release-1.2 in a new PR and assign it to you.

In response to this:

/cherry-pick release-1.2

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

Copy link
Contributor

@killianmuldoon killianmuldoon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Sep 1, 2022
Copy link
Contributor

@CecileRobertMichon CecileRobertMichon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/lgtm

Note that we have this policy in the doc

For each given API version only the most recent associated release branch is supported, older branches are immediately unsupported

We might want to revise it if we're not actually following it in practice

@sbueringer
Copy link
Member Author

sbueringer commented Sep 1, 2022

/lgtm

Note that we have this policy in the doc

For each given API version only the most recent associated release branch is supported, older branches are immediately unsupported

We might want to revise it if we're not actually following it in practice

Yup. That policy was why I brought it up yesterday in the office hours. With v1.0 and (looks like now too with v1.1) we did one more patch release after the next .0 minor release. This comes roughly down to the previous minor version is supported until one month after the release of the next minor version.

I'm general in favor of revising the policy. Although I wonder if dropping support at the time of the next minor release or one month later is the right thing to do.

Essentially we declared ClusterAPI ready for production, but we are now 1,5 months after the v1.2 release and we don't have releases of the most frequently used infrastructure providers based on and tested with CAPI v1.2. (possibly the current infra provider releases have been tested for compatibility with v1.2, I"m not following infra providers very closely)

That means basically when v1.1 will be out of support in 2 weeks, users can't use a combination of core CAPI and infra providers where both are supported.

@fabriziopandini
Copy link
Member

fabriziopandini commented Sep 2, 2022

I agree that the implicit feedback from the provider is showing us that we are a little bit too aggressive in setting a release branch EOL even if there are no API changes on the next one.

@fabriziopandini
Copy link
Member

/lgtm
/approve

Given that this is compliant with our current deprecation policy.
Let's tackle improvements to the deprecation policy as part of the release team work

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: fabriziopandini

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Sep 7, 2022
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit 77b011e into kubernetes-sigs:main Sep 7, 2022
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.3 milestone Sep 7, 2022
@k8s-infra-cherrypick-robot

@sbueringer: new pull request created: #7186

In response to this:

/cherry-pick release-1.2

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants