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.

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

Expand on slush definition #269

Closed
pbarker opened this Issue Aug 31, 2018 · 7 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@pbarker
Copy link

pbarker commented Aug 31, 2018

In the 8/30 sig-arch meeting the question was raised on whether api adds could be merged in slush. The consensus was a firm no. This isn't reflected in the current docs and we should consider explicitly calling out types of changes that are restricted.

@justaugustus

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

justaugustus commented Oct 26, 2018

This is open for anyone who wants to write a quick blurb. @jdumars?
/help

@spiffxp

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

spiffxp commented Jan 3, 2019

/milestone v1.14

It's not clear to me whether code slush has served its intended purpose. From what I can tell, it is meant to signal that we aren't accepting any major refactors, but is intended to allow for a higher velocity of code changes than code freeze.

Does it simplify things if we just get rid of it entirely? If we keep it around, can we more tightly quantify what is and is not allowed in a way that we can verify the effectiveness of this added process?

@nikopen

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

nikopen commented Jan 4, 2019

+1 on getting rid of code slush. In the current handbook iteration of bug-triage there's 'early release', 'pre-code-slush', 'code-slush', 'code-freeze' and 'burndown' - I'm in favor of fewer stages with clearer definitions while I'm cleaning up the handbook (#430).

In its stead, there can be clearer timelines and boundaries on code freeze - freeze could happen a bit earlier, with a clearer signal, i.e. 'major features should be ideally finished around the first half of code freeze timeslot'.

@spiffxp

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

spiffxp commented Jan 7, 2019

Discussed at release team this morning. The experience of previous release team members was that code slush was a useful "code freeze is coming" deadline. For example, some SIGs would wait until code slush to decide whether or not a feature was going to land. Most felt a blast across kubernetes-dev@/twitter/slack would be sufficient for this.

The actual mechanism of requiring additional labels and milestones seemed maybe not worth the hassle. Code slush as a concrete phase maybe doesn't need to exist.

This was referenced Jan 12, 2019

@spiffxp

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

spiffxp commented Jan 29, 2019

/remove-help
/close

@k8s-ci-robot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

k8s-ci-robot commented Jan 29, 2019

@spiffxp: Closing this issue.

In response to this:

/remove-help
/close

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.

@spiffxp

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

spiffxp commented Jan 29, 2019

/assign

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.