docs: Add v1.3 conformance report table #3810
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
release-note-none
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
size/M
|
Hi @snorwin. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. 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-sigs/prow repository. |
k8s-ci-robot
added
ok-to-test
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: robscott, snorwin 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 |
k8s-ci-robot
added
approved
snorwin
force-pushed
the
conformance-report-table-1.3
branch
from
9cd9f8a to
19373c8
Compare
hack/mkdocs-generate-conformance.py
Outdated
| @@ -41,8 +41,8 @@ def on_files(files, config, **kwargs): | |||
| log.info("generating conformance") | |||
|
|
|||
| vers = getConformancePaths() | |||
| # Iterate over the list of versions. Exclude the pre 1.0 versions. | |||
| for v in vers[3:]: | |||
| # Iterate over the list of versions. Exclude the pre 1.1 versions. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, this implies that v1.0 of Gateway API is no longer supported, which I don't know if we really want at the moment.
I think that it's probably better to let the versions stack up for now - since the conformance reports are staying around, it costs very little to leave implementations that only support v1.0 with links here, especially if something like @howardjohn's proposal in #3814 goes ahead and we need to start keeping track of "submitted a conformance report since v1.0" or something.
tl;dr I think we should leave this at v1.0 and above, and not remove the v1.0 page. For now. We can have a discussion about how many versions of Gateway API are supported another time, but let's not do it accidentally here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think supporting up to four versions makes sense, but beyond that it starts to become confusing.
Looking at the list of implementations proposed in #3814, it seems that kuma/kumahq would be the only implementation listed with conformance solely for v1.0. This means the resulting list would be nearly identical either way.
Given the timing with the upcoming blog post, I’m in favor of moving forward with this PR, I support adding v1.0 implementations for now and revisiting the discussion later.
@robscott is that ok for you as well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed we probably need to adopt some set timeframe or number of versions for when to roll off old reports, and/or maybe alternatively consider a tweaked web UX for this to become a single filterable page instead of separate pages.
Signed-off-by: Norwin Schnyder <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Norwin Schnyder <[email protected]>
snorwin
force-pushed
the
conformance-report-table-1.3
branch
from
19373c8 to
a1c4cf0
Compare
|
I reverted the commit that removed the v1.0 conformance reports table, but kept the automatic markdown file updates. |
|
I think this is good to go now, we can discuss how many versions to leave at a later date. /lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
What type of PR is this?
/kind documentation
What this PR does / why we need it:
With three implementations now successfully passing the conformance tests for Gateway API v1.3, and the blogpost to be published soon, it’s valuable to add the v1.3 conformance report table to the Gateway API website.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes N/A
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: