opentelemetry-specification icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
opentelemetry-specification copied to clipboard
verified publisher icon open-telemetry

Update spec to comply with OTEP-232

Open jpkrohling opened this issue 7 months ago • 7 comments

Changes

This change brings the specification lifecycle phases in alignment with OTEP-232 which defines the maturity levels for OTel in general. Most of the changes should be non-contentious, but one aspect deserves discussion: should feature-freeze be mapped to Release Candidate?

Should the changelog be updated to include this change?

Signed-off-by: Juraci Paixão Kröhling [email protected]

jpkrohling avatar May 27 '25 08:05 jpkrohling

To me Experimental + Feature-Freeze => Release candidate, but curious what other @open-telemetry/technical-committee folks think.

IIRC - we did use Feature-Freeze on Stable components as well to denote no expected additions / features while implementation caught up. I think moving to just Stable at this point is ok.

jsuereth avatar May 27 '25 11:05 jsuereth

but curious what other @open-telemetry/technical-committee folks think.

It's not entirely clear to me, but is there an action item for me? How can we move this forward?

jpkrohling avatar May 31 '25 14:05 jpkrohling

To me Experimental + Feature-Freeze => Release candidate, but curious what other @open-telemetry/technical-committee folks think.

My understanding is that Feature-freeze is not a maturity level. It indicates that no new changes are being accepted to the document. It does not claim a particular stability/maturity level and potentially can be used with any maturity level.

I am not sure Experimental + Feature-Freeze is necessarily an indication of a Release candidate. Experimental is/was the least stable level, so how can it become a Release candidate with just a Feature freeze?

tigrannajaryan avatar Jun 02 '25 08:06 tigrannajaryan

Can you please also file issues with all other SIGs to update their statuses to match OTEP232 requirements?

Absolutely, once this one is merged, I'll file the issues and point to this PR for reference.

jpkrohling avatar Jun 06 '25 19:06 jpkrohling

Folks, can you please help me understand what's needed from me to move this forward?

jpkrohling avatar Jun 13 '25 06:06 jpkrohling

I like the idea (for now at least) to separate Feature Freeze from the stability level. @jsuereth think this is a good compromise (for now)?

carlosalberto avatar Jun 13 '25 16:06 carlosalberto

From the last Spec call, we discussed that:

  1. We can leave the Feature Freeze alone/in-place in this PR.
  2. Follow up with a separate PR to remove Feature Freeze for now. We can bring this in later if/as needed.

@jpkrohling

carlosalberto avatar Jun 19 '25 16:06 carlosalberto

This PR was marked stale due to lack of activity. It will be closed in 7 days.

github-actions[bot] avatar Jul 01 '25 03:07 github-actions[bot]