I wanted to know if I should still keep details about Distributed tracing and Canary release under "Testing methodologies" section as they're no longer that important?
You can summarize them in one sentence. If we decided to do them over the summer, we can open a new PR to amend this RFC.
Also, two more suggestions:
The "Implementation Details" section seems to go back-and-forth between non-Sonobuoy and Sonobuoy modes, which is confusing. Please group all the information together under subsections. E.g., start the section with the "default mode" to run the test (I don't want Sonobuoy to be a hard dependency). Then follow by a subsection with just information and steps on running the tests as Sonobuoy plugin.
Also, consider removing the subsection on the custom MovieChat application. It makes your RFC longer, without adding much value, since we are starting with an existing application like emojivoto. If we decided to build that custom application over the summer, we can open a PR against your RFC to add it back in.
You can summarize them in one sentence. If we decided to do them over the summer, we can open a new PR to amend this RFC.
Also, two more suggestions:
The "Implementation Details" section seems to go back-and-forth between non-Sonobuoy and Sonobuoy modes, which is confusing. Please group all the information together under subsections. E.g., start the section with the "default mode" to run the test (I don't want Sonobuoy to be a hard dependency). Then follow by a subsection with just information and steps on running the tests as Sonobuoy plugin.
Also, consider removing the subsection on the custom MovieChat application. It makes your RFC longer, without adding much value, since we are starting with an existing application like emojivoto. If we decided to build that custom application over the summer, we can open a PR against your RFC to add it back in.