-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 71
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Release process #33
Release process #33
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Left some general clarifying questions and comments.
Additional feedback:
|
Signed-off-by: Javier Romero <jromero@pivotal.io>
2353369
to
6b59e91
Compare
I think an Unresolved Question is "who's on the CCB?" Are there any drawbacks to this proposal? |
Moving to final comment period |
Disussion in WG about how to handle out of band release:
|
This to be moved into entry in https://github.com/buildpacks/community when ratified |
- **Release Notes** | ||
- **Migration Guide**, when appropriate. | ||
- The release branch will be tagged as `v<version>`. | ||
- The release branch will be merged into `master`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
An aspect of this should also be, "on thursday, a standing item will be discussing the upcoming releases".
What this disucssion entails, I'm not certan.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Depending on the lifecycle of the release I can imagine the following:
- At the start of a new release, rundown/celebration of previous release and discussion for the proposed features being worked on in the new one.
- During development, quick status check/any open questions on features
- Week before feature complete, a warning that it closes next Tues.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we should also add comms here (email, twitter, slack #announcements, etc)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
After @zmackie and I tried to hash this out we incorporated the role of a release manager. (refer to updated doc for details). It does include the idea of relaying status during working group meetings but given the role is short lived (within feature complete) I do think the listed items lend themselves more to the PM role. Thoughts?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@jkutner added!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What is the distinction in your head of PM/Release Manager?
We've created a #release-planning channel in slack for these discussion |
Signed-off-by: Javier Romero <jromero@pivotal.io>
Signed-off-by: Javier Romero <jromero@pivotal.io>
206c394
to
d304030
Compare
text/0000-release-process.md
Outdated
|
||
_The following schedules are suggestive and subject to change based on practicality._ | ||
|
||
* Release Cadence: **Monthly** on the **1st Tuesday** of the month |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are all releases happening on the 1st Tues? Does this only apply to pack
, to lifecycle
? Do other pieces of software like libbuildpack or the Teknton template follow this? What about if we want to release one of them earlier b/c of a breaking change, do we need to wait a month then?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Updated the summary to present this as a template that only pack and lifecycle would use initially. The specifics on dates are agreed upon outside this document.
Just because this RFC hasn't been accepted, I think we can trial this whole process. Overall, I like a lot of this RFC. That being said, there are a still some outstanding questions that I think that need to be answered before this moves forward. |
text/0000-release-process.md
Outdated
|
||
A migration guide is a document which details breaking changes for migrating from prior versions. | ||
|
||
### Release Execution |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Announcements via e-mail, slack, social media(?) should be included as part of the release plan so we don't forget.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Added
I like @hone's suggestion to trial the process. But I think there are too many open questions to finalize as is. In particular I'd like to see more clarity on:
I think those points are captured well in the inline comments by others, but I wanted to reiterate. |
Moving back out of FCP because we were a little over-eager. |
- Make it clear this is a template being applied to pack and lifecycle - Denote it excludes patches and out-of-band releases - Rename release execution to release finalization - Clarify CCB members - Add mention of tagging and release branch merging to master - Release manager role - Additional comms to release finalization Signed-off-by: Javier Romero <jromero@pivotal.io>
@jkutner we've made some changes that should shine light on some of the questions you've gathered:
This is now answered. TL;DR; maintainers of component
Summary updated. This process is intended to be a "template" that will be applied to
Summary update. This RFC intentionally leaves out out-of-band releases to be hashed out later as they provide their own set of challenges.
Summary update. As a template, the scheduling of interoperable components is left up to a higher order as well as future definitions in an "out-of-band" release process. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The biggest outstanding question here for me is: what about docs? This RFC says that the maintainers of a subteam comprise the CCB. However, the docs are owned by the learning team. How will docs updates and releases be coordinated?
|
||
### Release Manager | ||
|
||
A release manager is a role assigned to an individual selected to own the release process. A release manager should be |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is the release manager assigned per release or is this a more long standing role?
|
||
The responsibilities of the release manager include, but are not limited to: | ||
|
||
- Communicating status during working group meetings. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we elaborate things covered in these meetings?
Outstanding Q: does this apply to lifecycle? |
From WG 4/15: @jromero will update to reflect that just pack is affected for now |
Signed-off-by: Javier Romero <rjavier@vmware.com>
Updated |
@jromero nope, just nitpick formality, that we should make sure to make it clear when unresolved questions are resolved/out of scope for future readings. |
Moving to FCP as of 2020-05-06, will be merged 2020-05-13 assuming no other feedback is presented. |
readable