chore: cleanup TODO list and alternatives considered for GEP 1709 #2051
Conversation
We previously considered mesh an "alternatives considered" topic, as we didn't have tests available for mesh. We have tests now, and we also already added "mesh" as a profile so mesh is now in scope.
We decided to make ReferenceGrant part of profiles such as HTTP for the time being, so no action needs to be taken on this for the time being.
|
Adding the "do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed" label because no release-note block was detected, please follow our release note process to remove it. 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. |
k8s-ci-robot
added
kind/gep
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
shaneutt
removed
the
do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: mlavacca, shaneutt 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 |
|
Whoops, forgot to put a hold on it. Just give it a once over and make sure you're in agreement. |
lgtm |
| The following are items that we intend to resolve before we consider this GEP | ||
| `implementable`: | ||
|
|
||
| - We still need to sort out how we're going to display conformance results. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Check the commit history, it got moved down to "required to move past experimental" rather than "required to consider implementable. The thinking here is that the machinery we have provides a surface well enough for practically any display layer to be built on top, so it doesn't need to block (in fact, doesn't need to block GA) that we have a fancy display layer.
| reach out to some frontend developers to come up with something really | ||
| solid prior to moving to `implementable`. | ||
| The following are items that **MUST** be resolved before we move past the | ||
| `provisioning/prototyping` status: |
| - Right now we've said that `GatewayClass` and `Gateway` tests will be | ||
| implicitly added to testing profiles were they are referenced, but we're | ||
| not sure yet whether this is going to work out for `ReferenceGrant` as we | ||
| know of at least one implementation that explicitly doesn't support it. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Check the commit history, the commit includes an extended comment which explains: basically we decided to go the other way and implicitly added ReferenceGrant tests to profiles. It seems this might actually be fine for all implementations, if not we technically allow the feature to be disabled.
whoops, my bad. I should have put it on hold. |
What type of PR is this?
/kind gep
/area conformance
What this PR does / why we need it:
In support of #1709 this cleans up our alternatives considered and TODO list. It moves some TODO items as blocking for post-
experimentalas opposed to blockingimplementablebased on our recent experience that suggests blocking at that level is not needed.