Update implementations.md with removal policy #3863
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
release-note-none
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
size/M
youngnick
force-pushed
the
implementations-policy-update
branch
from
b64d40f to
11019c1
Compare
|
/hold for extra review. |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
do-not-merge/hold
|
@youngnick great work! I'm happy with the suggested removal process, and it is clear how it is described. |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: kflynn, youngnick 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 |
|
/lgtm I'll defer to Nick for the hold lift. |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
+1 this is also aligned with sig docs guidelines about 3rd party kubernetes/enhancements#1327 and discussed heaciy in kubernetes/steering#292 (comment) |
|
/assign |
youngnick
force-pushed
the
implementations-policy-update
branch
from
11019c1 to
c79f429
Compare
k8s-ci-robot
added
size/L
|
Okay, that should resolve all the outstanding comments, I think. PTAL. |
site-src/implementations.md
Outdated
| cover, and documentation to help users get started. This status information should | ||
| be no longer than a few paragraphs. | ||
|
|
||
| There are three main classes of implementation: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unfortunately mkdocs is really struggling with this list formatting. It may be easier to use subheadings here: https://deploy-preview-3863--kubernetes-sigs-gateway-api.netlify.app/implementations/. To go a bit further, it may help to move to a structure roughly like this:
## Conformant Implementations
_Definition of what it means to be a conformant implementation_
* Conformant implementation 1
## Partially Conformant Implementations
...This is almost certainly easier to do as a follow up after this PR. But until then, it may make sense to push this content down to the bottom of the page since it's not very meaningful until we've actually categorized implementations.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've updated this to leave it at the top, but have changed to using headings instead of trying nested lists. I think this will do for now; I'm going to follow up basically straight away and add in the categories.
This commit updates the "Implementations" page with details on what implementations need to do in order to stay a current and registered implementation of Gateway API. This includes a policy about when implementations will be removed from the page. Signed-off-by: Nick Young <[email protected]>
youngnick
force-pushed
the
implementations-policy-update
branch
from
c79f429 to
d8526a4
Compare
|
Thanks @youngnick! /lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
do-not-merge/hold
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
/kind documentation
/area conformance-machinery
What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR updates the "Implementations" page with details on what implementations need to do in order to stay a current and registered implementation of Gateway API.
This includes a policy about when implementations will be removed from the page, and adds a Page Review process for the Implementations page.
This follows on and supersedes the discussion on #3814.
After this PR merges, @youngnick will perform the first Page Review process as documented in this update, which will meet the same needs as #3814.
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: