-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 632
Make feature name required for Experimental #3859
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
Make feature name required for Experimental #3859
Conversation
robscott
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @youngnick!
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: robscott, youngnick The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
We have discussed this in community meetings and Slack, and have informally agreed that a conformance Feature Name must be set for a GEP to graduate to Experimental. This commit adds changes to the GEP process page and the GEP template to make this official. Signed-off-by: Nick Young <[email protected]>
69f9a75 to
8d384d1
Compare
|
Thanks @youngnick! /lgtm |
We have discussed this in community meetings and Slack, and have informally agreed that a conformance Feature Name must be set for a GEP to graduate to Experimental. This commit adds changes to the GEP process page and the GEP template to make this official. Signed-off-by: Nick Young <[email protected]>
What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup
/kind documentation
What this PR does / why we need it:
We have discussed this in community meetings and
Slack, and have informally agreed that
a conformance Feature Name must be set for a
GEP to graduate to Experimental.
This PR adds changes to the GEP process page and the GEP template to make this official.
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: