renaming changes from 1.17.0 to 1.18.0 are not listed

[frzifus]

Release notes

Rename google openshift platform attribute from google_cloud_openshift to gcp_openshift to match the existing cloud.provider prefix. (open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification#3095)

@mx-psi pointed out that this change should be reflacted in the 1.18.0 schema.

Can we fix this in 1.18.0 or do we need another release?

Another question, is this schema file maintained by hand? I searched for some documentation, but i was unable to find it 🤕.

[mx-psi]

One thing to note is that there are no previous examples or changing the value of an attribute in the schema, just of changing the name of attributes. Maybe this is not currently supported by schemas?

[carlosalberto]

That's correct, there's no way to change the value of an attribute at this moment (this was mentioned by somebody else, IIRC). It sounds like a potential addition, although I don't know how often we would need this.

[carlosalberto]

@tigrannajaryan any opinion?

[tigrannajaryan]

Can we fix this in 1.18.0 or do we need another release?

Schema files are immutable. We never modify previously released versions. If an omission happens it remains unhandled by Schema files forever. We don't have a way to fix this currently.

One thing to note is that there are no previous examples or changing the value of an attribute in the schema, just of changing the name of attributes. Maybe this is not currently supported by schemas?

Correct. There is no way express value renames in Schema Files. If this is necessary we will need to add a new transform type.

[mx-psi]

If this is necessary we will need to add a new transform type.

I think this is necessary, since we won't have a way to gracefully migrate users to the new value otherwise. Do you agree @carlosalberto @tigrannajaryan? Should we open a separate issue for this?

[tigrannajaryan]

If this is necessary we will need to add a new transform type.

I think this is necessary, since we won't have a way to gracefully migrate users to the new value otherwise. Do you agree @carlosalberto @tigrannajaryan? Should we open a separate issue for this?

Do we have other examples of such change? If it only ever happened once it may be premature to add the support for it into Schema Files.

[mx-psi]

Here is another case where we need the new transform type: /pull/409 (in this case a value is being dropped instead of renamed)