Conversation
should no longer make breaking changes, that where accepted during the experimental phase. Signed-off-by: Florian Lehner <florian.lehner@elastic.co>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I didn't add a changelog entry, as this is more a tooling/CI change and no core component (proto) is affected. Please let me know, if you want to have a changelog entry.
|
IIRC we discussed that we don't want to make breaking changes after alpha, but it's still a possibility, especially before we go to beta. Will we have a break-glass mechanism for this? I guess a GH admin could merge a breaking changes PR, even if the check fails? |
|
If it is required, it would still be possible to add something like #576 again temporarly, if GH admins can not merge such a PR. |
|
Is this too early? Do we want to wait until "Beta"? |
Looking back, the profiling signal did have regular breaking changes in the past OTLP versions. I think, we can agree that with moving on to an Alpha state, we want a breaking change to be the exception rather than regular business. Having this check in place pushes us being more careful and coordinated going forward. |
|
How about doing this as a new CI check specifically for profiles, so we know if there are breaking changes but it's not a "required check" that requires an admin to merge? Maybe a bit too much, but that new CI check could be voluntarily ignored with a specific label? |
|
@open-telemetry/profiling-maintainers I can merge this if you are happy with this approach. |
6 participants
#576 exluded profiles from breaking changes check. Moving beyond the experimental phase, profiles must now avoid making breaking changes, which were previously acceptable.
Fixes #577
FYI: @open-telemetry/profiling-approvers