buildpacks / spec

Specification for Cloud Native Buildpacks

https://buildpacks.io

Apache License 2.0

253 stars 70 forks source link

Making builpack image extensions feature non-experimental #378

Closed sriram-mahavadi closed 5 months ago

sriram-mahavadi commented 11 months ago

Hi,

We are presently waiting for the buildpacks image extensions feature to be non-experimental so that we can use it in some prod use-cases. As discussed in the slack, this could be done in the next release. Please help clarify the ETA for this.

Thank you, Sriram

loewenstein commented 11 months ago

@pbusko @c0d1ngm0nk3y @modulo11 how sure are we that https://github.com/buildpacks/rfcs/pull/301 will not require any breaking changes?

loewenstein commented 10 months ago

@natalieparellano should we add #301 as a dependency, e.g. as a tasklist entry in the issue description? Are there any other issues or PRs pending that should be added as a dependency?

What do you think is a realistic timeline for platform api 0.13 and buildpack api 0.11?

loewenstein commented 10 months ago

@natalieparellano do we need to include a change and bump to Buildpacks API as well and add this to the Buildpack API 0.11 milestone in addition?

natalieparellano commented 10 months ago

do we need to include a change and bump to Buildpacks API as well and add this to the Buildpack API 0.11 milestone in addition?

We probably should. But, the platform is the only place where we enforce "experimental = true" in order to use extensions.

natalieparellano commented 10 months ago

What do you think is a realistic timeline for platform api 0.13

I am consistently guilty of over-optimism, but it would be great to get this out before everyone disappears before the holidays. Let's discuss it in an upcoming working group.

natalieparellano commented 10 months ago

Here's the current milestone for lifecycle 0.19.0: https://github.com/buildpacks/lifecycle/milestone/40 ...2 issues in flight, 2 not started but "small"

natalieparellano commented 8 months ago

Current state of the world:

The spec has caveats everywhere that extensions are experimental (buildpack and platform)
In the lifecycle, you cannot build with extensions unless CNB_EXPERIMENTAL_MODE is warn or silent
- The lifecycle will error if the provided order contains extensions
In pack, you cannot build with extensions unless pack config experimental is set
- pack will error if the provided builder contains extensions
- All other pack commands (pack builder create, pack extension <command>) are unguarded

loewenstein commented 8 months ago

Sounds like that's two pull requests for the specs (or three, if the image extension spec has such notion as well). One pull request for the lifecycle and one pull request for pack.

Is there an agreement to remove the "experimental" notices?

loewenstein commented 8 months ago

Also, I suppose https://github.com/buildpacks/spec/pull/383 and https://github.com/buildpacks/spec/pull/384 have to be merged first.

natalieparellano commented 8 months ago

Sounds like that's two pull requests for the specs (or three, if the image extension spec has such notion as well).

buildpack.md and image_extension.md are versioned together, so two pull requests (one buildpack, one platform) would be fine.

AFAIK there is no opposition to this change, https://github.com/buildpacks/spec/issues/378#issuecomment-1898736772 is simply to summarize what the change is.

loewenstein commented 8 months ago

Adding the lifecycle change for the above mentioned spec changes to the issue: https://github.com/buildpacks/lifecycle/pull/1276

natalieparellano commented 8 months ago

@loewenstein are you planning to make the spec PR for this? We should be able to at least cut the spec in the coming week or so.

loewenstein commented 8 months ago

387 and #386

natalieparellano commented 5 months ago

Closed as completed