📖 add clarification about if is possible to migrate from V0 to V1 #1502
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for olmv1 ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
|
@joelanford @LalatenduMohanty |
docs/index.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| OLMv1 is actively evolving towards adopting more common package formats widely used by the community, | ||
| such as **HelmCharts**. Until OLMv1 achieves key milestones on its [roadmap—such](project/olmv1_roadmap.md) as support for **Webhooks**, | ||
| **HelmCharts**, and other critical features—we strongly recommend that users **do not migrate from OLMv0 to OLMv1** at this time. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Strongly recommended that users don't migrate from OLMv0 to OLMv1 feels like a stretch to me. What if someone if using OLMv0 in a way that is totally compatible with the limitations of OLMv1? Should we provide them details on how to go from using OLMv0 to OLMv1 in that case?
The migration story right now feels much more nuanced than I think that this messaging conveys.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OLMv0 in a way that is totally compatible with the limitations of OLMv1?
it is very hard to ensure or map all possible scenarios
it has many caveats.
Should we provide them details on how to go from using OLMv0 to OLMv1 in that case?
We do not have the migration steps and we have not implemented what we need to be there yet. As we discussed yesterday in the community meeting, we want to address more aspects before starting to work on the migration guidance to ensure it is done properly. (I.,e We want to support HelmChart and etc) We might want to encourage people use HelmChart with OLMv1 and not CSV
The idea here is to make this clear for both us and the community. Better wording suggestions are very welcome. However, at this moment, I understand that we convey we strongly recommend against using OLMv1 in production or starting any migration.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Btw, we might want to better clarify here that registry+v1/CSV is deprecated and we are moving towards HelmCharts.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I haven't spent any time thinking of better wording yet, but will plan to make some suggestions later today.
However, at this moment, I understand that we convey we strongly recommend against using OLMv1 in production or starting any migration
In my opinion, this is a bad precedent to set. It sounds like we have prematurely released v1.0.0 if we say that it isn't recommended to use in production. I think we do recommend using it in production for the use cases and workflows that are currently enabled by the features we have in place. We can separately state that we do not currently have any migration strategies in place for going from OLMv0 --> OLMv1.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok. Think about how we can convey the way in a way that is nice and transparent
Open to suggestions !!!
camilamacedo86
changed the title
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
|
@joelanford PTAL and let us know if you are fine with the language we have used. |
camilamacedo86
force-pushed
the
clarify-status
branch
from
bced5ff to
e7ee005
Compare
|
It is with your suggestion now, so it seems good to fly 🚀 |
camilamacedo86
changed the title
openshift-ci
bot
removed
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1502 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 74.68% 74.68%
=======================================
Files 42 42
Lines 3271 3271
=======================================
Hits 2443 2443
Misses 652 652
Partials 176 176
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
In order to try to be more transparent about our goals and current state.