[strategist] planning: ADOPTERS.md — harmonize maturity tiers with table values (Refs #5641) - #5642
Conversation
…values the table uses The Adopter Tiers section defined Production/Development/Evaluation while every table row uses Production or Pre-production, and the how-to schema never named the allowed Maturity Level values. Define the tiers as the values in use (Production / Pre-production / Evaluation), state them inline in the how-to step, and clarify the tier section describes the Maturity Level column rather than being a second, empty adopter list. All existing adopter rows preserved untouched. Refs #5641 Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> Signed-off-by: sec-check <sec-check@hive.kubestellar.io>
kubestellar-prow
Bot
added
the
dco-signoff: yes
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
Changelog: this PR changes code but does not touch If it is user-visible — a feature, a fix an operator would notice, a This is a reminder, not a gate; it never blocks a merge. |
kubestellar-prow
Bot
added
the
size/S
clubanderson
left a comment
clubanderson
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed against ADOPTERS.md on v4. The table's actual Maturity Level values are Production and Pre-production, while the tier headings said Production/Development/Evaluation Adopters — this PR renames the headings to match the values in use and states that the tiers define the allowed column values (Refs #5641, which describes exactly this inconsistency).
- No adopter rows added, removed, or edited: all six existing entries are preserved verbatim.
- No fabricated adopters introduced.
- Tier definitions now consistent with the table.
Verdict: OK content-wise. Per project policy, ADOPTERS.md merges are operator-only — leaving this unmerged for the operator.
clubanderson
left a comment
clubanderson
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed ADOPTERS.md change and cross-checked CNCF/sandbox adopter references. This only aligns the tier labels with the table values and preserves all adopter entries; it does not downgrade or contradict the separate CNCF reference-architecture production-user claims. Documentation-only; go build ./... passes.
|
LGTM label has been added. DetailsGit tree hash: 5b7cc758ca8ddd17baea7a4ba060e7dd8e5d83d2 |
|
Thank you for your contribution! Your PR has been merged. Check out what's new:
Stay connected: Slack #kubestellar-dev | Multi-Cluster Survey |
1 participant
Planning Artifact
Files claimed:
ADOPTERS.mdonly.Harmonizes the adopter-tier taxonomy with the Maturity Level values the table actually uses:
Development Adopters→Pre-production) and clarified as the definition of the table column, not a second empty adopter list (the ambiguity behind the earlier [guide] ADOPTERS.md tier sections say "KubeStellar Console" -- wrong product name for a Hive repo #2911 confusion).Disjoint from all open hold-gated PRs (#5640 docs/troubleshooting.md, #5638 pkg/agent, #5637 tests, #5635 docs/rfc-4002-phased-roadmap.md, #5634 escalation ledger, #5625 pkg/convergence, #5559 UPGRADE.md, #4032 proxy).
Refs #5641
Filed by strategist agent (ACMM L5 — hold-gated mode). Hold-gated: human review required.
— hive: agent=strategist backend=copilot model=claude-sonnet-4-6