community
community copied to clipboard
kubernetes
annual report KEP listings are very very wrong
Describe the issue
Looking at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/kubernetes/community/88d47c125f9340f6d7733a3b61191591371963e9/sig-network/annual-report-2023.md, there is a big problem with the KEPs. The generator seems to have assumed that the milestone sections of kep.yaml were authoritative about what has shipped, but the documentation for that field in the template kep.yaml says that it is "The milestone at which this feature was, or is targeted to be, at each stage", implying that it's more about hopes and dreams. In particular, whatever generated the list of KEPs appears to have not compared milestone to stage or latest-milestone, and so just cheerfully declared that things like Dual Stack API Server (currently pre-alpha) and AdminNetworkPolicy (currently alpha) are now GA, merely because they had originally been targeted at being GA by now.
(Also, the "this was autogenerated" comment appears in the wrong section of the template...)
There are no sig labels on this issue. Please add an appropriate label by using one of the following commands:
-
/sig <group-name> -
/wg <group-name> -
/committee <group-name>
Please see the group list for a listing of the SIGs, working groups, and committees available.
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.
The generated data is also suggestive and is designed to help SIG leads have a pre-fetched list of KEPs that they can edit when they update the Annual Report for final submission. Many leads had mentioned earlier that Annual Reports were heavy and needed to trim this and help them with information. We will make that more explicit in the section.
"The milestone at which this feature was, or is targeted to be, at each stage", implying that it's more about hopes and dreams.
Separate discussion: Like the milestone section, which is suggestive and not authoritative, the annual report is also a draft one unless SIG leads submit an updated PR. It is reviewed first inside the SIG and then reviewed by the steering liaisons.
(Also, the "this was autogenerated" comment appears in the wrong section of the template...)
I've taken feedback on this. We will correct it for the next cycle.
the annual report is also a draft one unless SIG leads submit an updated PR
Are you going to remove the ones that don't get updated? Or will the incorrect info just stay there in that case?
Adding the autogenerated data inside a comment might be better, to prevent it from being "exposed" if the report never gets updated.
Are you going to remove the ones that don't get updated? Or will the incorrect info just stay there in that case?
That is on the cards actually. A few months back we (steering) discussed to remove annual report drafts that were never updated. It makes more sense to not keep them.
Adding the autogenerated data inside a comment might be better, to prevent it from being "exposed" if the report never gets updated.
This is a good feedback. We can do that update for the next cycle. Thanks @danwinship 🙌🏽
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues.
This bot triages un-triaged issues according to the following rules:
- After 90d of inactivity,
lifecycle/staleis applied - After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/stalewas applied,lifecycle/rottenis applied - After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/rottenwas applied, the issue is closed
You can:
- Mark this issue as fresh with
/remove-lifecycle stale - Close this issue with
/close - Offer to help out with Issue Triage
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/lifecycle stale
Hi @danwinship @palnabarun,
Commit https://github.com/kubernetes/community/commit/11d1a666706342cdfa558beaa7c21613a041e2dd addressed the following two feedback:
the "this was autogenerated" comment appears in the wrong section of the template
Adding the autogenerated data inside a comment might be better, to prevent it from being "exposed" if the report never gets updated.
Is it ok to close this issue as completed? OR, we need to keep this open to track further improvements in the autogeneration of KEP list?
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all issues.
This bot triages un-triaged issues according to the following rules:
- After 90d of inactivity,
lifecycle/staleis applied - After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/stalewas applied,lifecycle/rottenis applied - After 30d of inactivity since
lifecycle/rottenwas applied, the issue is closed
You can:
- Mark this issue as fresh with
/remove-lifecycle rotten - Close this issue with
/close - Offer to help out with Issue Triage
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.
/lifecycle rotten