Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Remove the concept of extended fields from our standard and experimental channels #275

Open
tssurya opened this issue Nov 19, 2024 · 4 comments · May be fixed by #284
Open

Remove the concept of extended fields from our standard and experimental channels #275

tssurya opened this issue Nov 19, 2024 · 4 comments · May be fixed by #284
Assignees
@tssurya
Labels
lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale.

Comments

@tssurya
Copy link
Contributor

tssurya commented Nov 19, 2024

Describe the issue:

We have 2 channels:

  1. standard channel signifies the fields are stable and all implementations must implement all fields in this channel -> also called core API fields
  2. experimental channel signifies standard channel plus extra new fields in addition to the core fields that are not yet stable and are waiting for implementations to implement before they can become part of the core. However these fields were called extended fields and had another notion of "optional to implement" for implementations

We have spoken in past sig-network-policy-api meetings and at kubecon that community is OK to get rid of these extended/core concept totally and just have the two channels -> All implementations that are implementing experimental must implement all the fields there and same goes for core.
@tssurya
Copy link
Contributor Author

tssurya commented Nov 19, 2024

/assign @tssurya

@danwinship
Copy link
Contributor

We should also consider whether the "channel" terminology makes sense. (It seems to not really be working well for Gateway anyway?)

We just have "experimental features", right?

@danwinship
Copy link
Contributor

We should also consider whether the "channel" terminology makes sense.

(maybe after the next release)

@tssurya tssurya linked a pull request Feb 12, 2025 that will close this issue
Open
@k8s-triage-robot
Copy link

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/stale is applied
  • After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
  • After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was 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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label Feb 18, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@tssurya tssurya

Labels
lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

[WIP] Remove extended fields support tssurya/network-policy-api
4 participants
@danwinship @tssurya @k8s-ci-robot @k8s-triage-robot