Re: [RFC PATCH] Feature doc: Added Feature Maturity Lifecycle

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>]

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 12:16:42PM +0000, Lars Kurth wrote:
> 
> > On 11 Nov 2015, at 16:33, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com> wrote:
> > 
> > FWIW I think it would be valuable if we can CC some vendors /
> > contributors and get feedback from them.
> 
> I highlighted this at the Advisory Board meeting and the board is
> supportive. Concrete feedback was
>
> A) "I'm generally supportive of this because I believe it will help
> reduce ambiguities around the status of features and ultimately help
> improve quality." This was mirrored by everyone at the last meeting. 
>
> B) The preview vs. experimental classification was deemed to be a bit
> arbitrary, and maybe we can fold them into one category. The feeling
> was that the distinction does not provide much value and we should
> maybe come up with something simpler.
>
> C) A concern raised was that by being explicit about "legacy" features
> we may create negative PR opportunities, e.g. "the Xen Project has
> declared 50% of its features to be untested and undocumented". Perhaps
> instead we just grandfather these features into "stable" rather than
> having an explicit "legacy-stable" designation.
> 

Putting those into "stable" sounds reasonable to me. Plus some
clarification as you mentioned below.

> Another possible solution would be to be clear about what is
> automatically tested and what requires manual testing (or is currently
> tested by 3rd party test infrastructure such as XenRT and others) in
> the "Supported" category. The argument that can be made is that for
> "legacy-stable" we rely on 3rd party testing. This would help direct
> test resources during Test Days towards such features. 
> 
> The documentation angle is probably less of an issue, because we have
> user facing docs for pretty much everything in the man pages. So we
> basically mainly talk about specs and other documents which are either
> in the wiki or in docs/misc. And of course we can make judgement calls
> for those docs in pretty much the same way as we do now.
> 
> Any views on the pros and cons?
>  
> Lars