Skip to content

Update spec to comply with OTEP-232 #4529

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

Merged

Conversation

jpkrohling
Copy link
Member

@jpkrohling jpkrohling commented May 27, 2025

Changes

This change brings the specification lifecycle phases in alignment with OTEP-232 which defines the maturity levels for OTel in general. Most of the changes should be non-contentious, but one aspect deserves discussion: should feature-freeze be mapped to Release Candidate?

Should the changelog be updated to include this change?

Signed-off-by: Juraci Paixão Kröhling [email protected]

Signed-off-by: Juraci Paixão Kröhling <[email protected]>
@jpkrohling jpkrohling requested review from a team as code owners May 27, 2025 08:15
Signed-off-by: Juraci Paixão Kröhling <[email protected]>
@jsuereth
Copy link
Contributor

To me Experimental + Feature-Freeze => Release candidate, but curious what other @open-telemetry/technical-committee folks think.

IIRC - we did use Feature-Freeze on Stable components as well to denote no expected additions / features while implementation caught up. I think moving to just Stable at this point is ok.

@jpkrohling
Copy link
Member Author

but curious what other @open-telemetry/technical-committee folks think.

It's not entirely clear to me, but is there an action item for me? How can we move this forward?

Copy link
Member

@tigrannajaryan tigrannajaryan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you please also file issues with all other SIGs to update their statuses to match OTEP232 requirements?

@tigrannajaryan
Copy link
Member

To me Experimental + Feature-Freeze => Release candidate, but curious what other @open-telemetry/technical-committee folks think.

My understanding is that Feature-freeze is not a maturity level. It indicates that no new changes are being accepted to the document. It does not claim a particular stability/maturity level and potentially can be used with any maturity level.

I am not sure Experimental + Feature-Freeze is necessarily an indication of a Release candidate. Experimental is/was the least stable level, so how can it become a Release candidate with just a Feature freeze?

@jpkrohling
Copy link
Member Author

Can you please also file issues with all other SIGs to update their statuses to match OTEP232 requirements?

Absolutely, once this one is merged, I'll file the issues and point to this PR for reference.

@jpkrohling
Copy link
Member Author

Folks, can you please help me understand what's needed from me to move this forward?

@carlosalberto
Copy link
Contributor

I like the idea (for now at least) to separate Feature Freeze from the stability level. @jsuereth think this is a good compromise (for now)?

@carlosalberto
Copy link
Contributor

From the last Spec call, we discussed that:

  1. We can leave the Feature Freeze alone/in-place in this PR.
  2. Follow up with a separate PR to remove Feature Freeze for now. We can bring this in later if/as needed.

@jpkrohling

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jul 1, 2025

This PR was marked stale due to lack of activity. It will be closed in 7 days.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale label Jul 1, 2025
@carlosalberto carlosalberto added this pull request to the merge queue Jul 1, 2025
Merged via the queue into open-telemetry:main with commit 9b2d7c8 Jul 1, 2025
5 of 6 checks passed
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 2, 2025
Follow up to #4529 

Discussed this recently during the Specification call and there was
initial agreement regarding removing Feature Freeze (and potentially
restoring it if needed).

PS - embarrassed to realize we had forgotten to remove Feature freeze
from the Baggage API and Context documents.
@arminru arminru mentioned this pull request Jul 10, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants