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

Document requirements for components moving stability levels and reaching 1.0 #11553

Open
2 of 10 tasks
mx-psi opened this issue Oct 28, 2024 · 2 comments
Open
2 of 10 tasks
Labels
admin-issues tracker issues etc.

Comments

@mx-psi
Copy link
Member

mx-psi commented Oct 28, 2024

We have a list of component stability levels, as well as guidelines for configuration changes. We also have the concept of a component being 1.0.

Based on some recent discussions on the Collector SIG (2024-10-23) and the Collector stability working group (2024-10-28), it would beneficial to have a consolidated document with a list of requirements for a component to move through the stability stages and for reaching 1.0

@mx-psi mx-psi added the admin-issues tracker issues etc. label Oct 28, 2024
mx-psi added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 30, 2024
<!--Ex. Fixing a bug - Describe the bug and how this fixes the issue.
Ex. Adding a feature - Explain what this achieves.-->
#### Description

<!-- Issue number if applicable -->

The goal is to work towards #11553 in this new document. This only
copies the contents of README.md verbatim.

#### Link to tracking issue
Fixes #11560
mx-psi added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 30, 2024
…ility doc (#11572)

<!--Ex. Fixing a bug - Describe the bug and how this fixes the issue.
Ex. Adding a feature - Explain what this achieves.-->
#### Description

<!-- Issue number if applicable -->
Works towards #11553. Unifies information about component stability in a
single document.

#### Link to tracking issue
Fixes #11571
@mx-psi
Copy link
Member Author

mx-psi commented Nov 13, 2024

For resiliency, we may want to consider a requirement about persistent storage support (at least under graceful termination situations)

@mx-psi
Copy link
Member Author

mx-psi commented Nov 13, 2024

We may also want to have requirements about keeping the size of internal state in check for stateful components

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
admin-issues tracker issues etc.
Projects
Status: Todo
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant