llm-d v1.1 Requirements

[kfswain]

llm-d is a close partner of IGW's, to ensure we release all necessary pieces that they rely on, we are creating this issue tied to the milestone such that any llm-d needs can be commented and referenced here.

This is currently informal, will create a stronger process as we improve our release pipeline

[ahg-g]

Can we create a label that we can use to tag issues that are required by llm-d?

[kfswain]

yup SG, made and tagging this issue

[nirrozenbaum]

this is a great start. I would like to suggest the following as next steps:
instead of having one issue that aggregates llm-d requirements per release, we should work with the label you created.

so when llm-d has a requirement, an appropriate issue should be created and tagged with the llm-d-requirement label.
if it belongs to a certain release, we should associate it to the milestone.
this way it should be possible to see all llm-d requirements for a specific release.
(I prefer to avoid creating a placeholder issue per release).

if you agree, I think we can close this issue and communicate this to llm-d channels.

[kfswain]

I don't think so. I dont want it to be the maintainers responsibility to suss out which issues should be included in which release. Creating a hanging issue on the milestone allows anyone to comment, attach issues, and capture discussion history so anyone reading can have a single source of truth.

If we just use the labels we wash out any other nuance and then its the maintainer responsibility to chase down owners of the issue, figure out when its expected to land, etc.

[nirrozenbaum]

ok, I think we might end up chasing ourselves with a huge issue that might represent multiple llm-d requirements (each might be a completely different task) and this might be very hard to follow.
but let’s give it a try 😃

[kfswain]

I'm not suggesting we can't make sub-issues. But commenting on this issue doesn't have permissions problems, augmenting the milestone does. We can do everything you suggest, just instead of tying directly to the milestone, it ties to this more permissively open issue.

[ahg-g]

With the label recommendation above, I was thinking similar to Nir, that an llm-d requests are tracked in separate issues that get triaged by the IGW maintainers and added to milestones as needed. It will be hard to discuss different requirements under the same issue.

[kfswain]

I renamed, I think we are saying the same thing, I'm just providing a level of indirection so the bottleneck isn't maintainers.

In summary:

• Still write issues as normal
• Tag them with the llm-d requirement tag
• if they are for v1.1, mention this issue, or create a comment in this issue with the ones that should be included.
• maintainers can sift through this issue and further filter down issues as needed.

Creating this staging area allows 'llm-d requirement` issues to be made that dont have to be in the next release, and I'm hoping this alleviates direct maintainer involvement in every step of the way, and instead just requires us to filter this issue. Perhaps I'm wrong