Upstream-friendly API Group of the ServiceBindingRequest CRD

[arthurdm]

We spoke about this idea in one of the PRs, so placing it into its own issue.

It would be good to update the apiVersion from apps.openshift.io/v1alpha1 into something that is neutral to OpenShift.

[arthurdm]

A suggestion: service.binding/v1alpha1.

[sbose78]

+1
Suggestion sounds nice. I'll check with operator-framework folks too on the group name.

[ZhuangYuZY]

It is great to help to adopt service binding CRD to run on other k8s cluster. Thank you.

[ron1]

@sbose78 @arthurdm Would an API Group name such as redhatdeveloper.redhat.io or redhatdev.redhat.io be more frictionless? Is including "developer" or "dev" in the API Group name too restrictive?

There is already precedent for such a naming scheme with org github.com/redhat-cop mapping to API Group redhatcop.redhat.io. It would be great to get this renaming committed sooner than later.

[ianpartridge]

As the ServiceBinding[Request] CRD is intended to be used in conjunction with non Red Hat binding targets/services, I think we should avoid mentioning Red Hat in the API.

[sbose78]

@redhat-developer/service-binding could you do a final weighing in on this, and agree on the group and kind?

[baijum]

The kind name ServiceBinding looks good. A generic group like service.binding is also fine.

[Avni-Sharma]

The kind name ServiceBinding looks good. A generic group like service.binding is also fine.

+1

[pedjak]

With the recent API refactoring (#608), the group got updated to operators.coreos.com