Emphasise iteration aspects of enhancement process #1913
Conversation
guidelines/enhancement_template.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| About the enhancement process: | ||
| 1. **Iterate.** Some sections of the enhancement do not make sense to fill out in the first pass. | ||
| It is ok to merge the enhancement with enough to implement a tech preview, and update ahead of |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IIRC we landed on the consensus in the arch call that it is required for an EP to be merged with enough to implement a tech preview in order for a TP feature gate to be merged.
Should we be more explicit with that here to strongly encourage merging of the EP when TP-viable?
As is the wording here feels like a softer encouragement, which may be interpreted more as a "If I want to" rather than a "I must".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pushed a change to make this stronger
|
/approve |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: everettraven, sdodson The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
approved
|
@JoelSpeed: all tests passed! Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. DetailsInstructions 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. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
3 participants
Recently discussed on the OCP architecture call, many of our EPs are rotting and being closed out in seeking perfection. We need to make sure the EPs merge and can be treated as a record of our history. To enable this, we want to make it clearer that EPs may not be perfect when they are first merged.
To do this:
CC @sdodson @everettraven @dgoodwin