Skip to content

Ship production-grade reference applications and transparent benchmarks #238

Description

@codeforester

Parent: #214

Train position: 24 of 26
Phase: P3 — Ecosystem trust and broad adoption

Problem

Cookbook examples demonstrate APIs but do not prove that the framework can carry realistic applications through configuration, failures, interruption, testing, bundling, deployment, and upgrades. Production-shaped examples are also the best way to expose missing framework contracts.

Acceptance criteria

  • Build an installer or updater, a CI or release utility, and a multi-command operations CLI with distinct realistic workflows rather than cosmetic variations.
  • Use only supported public APIs while collectively exercising configuration, subcommands, completions, logging, redaction, dry-run, retries, cleanup, signals, files, Git or GitHub, vendoring, and standalone bundling.
  • Give each application complete documentation, failure-path BATS coverage, conformance checks, CI, immutable release inputs, and a distributable verified artifact.
  • Exercise minimum Bash, current Bash, macOS/BSD userland, Linux/glibc, and Linux/musl across the three applications.
  • Track every required internal API or framework friction point as a blocking or explicitly accepted roadmap issue before closure.
  • Publish reproducible startup, import, subprocess, and artifact-size benchmarks with methodology, raw data, environmental context, and no unsupported performance claims.
  • Demonstrate v2 RC-to-GA and later supported v2 upgrade and rollback paths for each deployment mode; do not imply that v1 applications run unchanged.

Dependencies

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

enhancementNew feature or product improvement

Type

No type

Projects

Status
Backlog

Milestone

Relationships

None yet

Development

No branches or pull requests

Issue actions