KEP-2829: Formalize Gateway API transition to k8s.io group #2830
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
cncf-cla: yes
|
@robscott: GitHub didn't allow me to request PR reviews from the following users: jpeach. Note that only kubernetes members and repo collaborators can review this PR, and authors cannot review their own PRs. In response to this:
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. |
k8s-ci-robot
added
kind/kep
|
/lgtm |
|
@jpeach: changing LGTM is restricted to collaborators In response to this:
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. |
| The number of [implementations of the | ||
| API](https://gateway-api.sigs.k8s.io/references/implementations/) continues to | ||
| grow, and we believe that transitioning to an official Kubernetes API will help | ||
| provide greater quality and stability going forward. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
some amount of "experimental"-ness of the API goes away once the API is part of *.k8s.io group -> imparts a feeling of continuity and a more certain future
^ is already captured with "stability", just leaving a note, no action necessary.
| - v1alpha2 APIs are implemented by several implementations | ||
| - Approval from subproject owners + KEP reviewers | ||
| - Initial conformance tests are in place | ||
| - Validating webhook for advanced validation |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reading https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/using-api/, can we please add something along the lines "we know users of the API are using it in production and exercising most of the API surface"?
I'm assuming this list can be updated as we learn more, in which case, feel free to drop this as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Updated, thanks! I did drop the specific "production" reference, but I do think it's reasonable to expect long term usage of the API in at least dev and staging environments.
|
Some minor comments, otherwise |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
lgtm
|
/lgtm Thanks for this @robscott! |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
| Subproject maintainers will review PRs and API-changes on a per patch basis, | ||
| while upstream k8s api-reviewers will review API changes on a release by release | ||
| basis. In addition to this, subproject maintainers could involve k8s | ||
| api-reviewers on a case-by-case as needed. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Once it goes beta, you should get an API approver on all such changes, I think
|
/approve |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: johnbelamaric, robscott, thockin 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
the
approved
One-line PR description: This KEP is to formalize the Gateway API transition to k8s.io group and ensure we have reviewers in place that can actually review the v1alpha2 API when it is ready (hopefully mid August).
Issue link: Migrate Gateway API to k8s.io Group #2829
Other comments: This is largely a formality of the official Kubernetes API review process, much of the traditional KEP content is not applicable.
/cc @andrewsykim @danwinship @khenidak @bowei @jpeach @hbagdi
/assign @thockin @johnbelamaric