docs: update stabilization section #4751
Conversation
kt3k
changed the title
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #4751 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 91.88% 91.88%
=======================================
Files 485 485
Lines 41292 41292
Branches 5317 5317
=======================================
Hits 37943 37943
Misses 3292 3292
Partials 57 57 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
| at stabilization. | ||
| 1. Allow 1 month for 2 other maintainers to review the package and handle any | ||
| feedback from the community. | ||
| 1. If there are no remaining issues, publish version 1.0.0. If there are |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should avoid canceling the stabilization of a package. Canceling the stabilization means it'll never happen. Instead, we can extend the waiting period with the extended waiting period being defined on a case-by-case basis, based on the severity of the issues.
README.md
Outdated
| 1. No open issues or pull requests that might lead to breaking changes. For | ||
| example, issues that suggest new non-breaking features are fine to exist | ||
| at stabilization. | ||
| 1. Allow 1 month for 2 other maintainers to review the package and handle any |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think you forgot to note that 2 other maintainers must review the package, so I added it in.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think no feedback 1 month automatically means the approval.
I also don't want to assign core team people randomly to review tasks.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No feedback after 1 month could also mean no one has looked at the package. I think some degree of approval from the core team should be a requirement, even if it's one other person.
| package must go through the following steps to achieve stabilization: | ||
|
|
||
| 1. Publish version 1.0.0-rc.1 once meeting the following requirements: | ||
| 1. Approved by at least 2 maintainers. There must be consensus that the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I repeat what there must be a consensus on in the step below for emphasis.
|
Landing for now. Let's keep iterating on details. |
|
I think the current wording allows for reviews from the internal team. LGTM. |
closes #4661