Making builpack image extensions feature non-experimental

[sriram-mahavadi]

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]

@pbusko @c0d1ngm0nk3y @modulo11 how sure are we that buildpacks/rfcs#301 will not require any breaking changes?

[loewenstein]

@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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Also, I suppose #383 and #384 have to be merged first.