> > Or, we could emphasize the shift in process with bigger changes: > i. Instead of cutting "release/1.13.0" on May 4, we could instead cut > "support/1.13" > ii instead of creating "apache-release-1-13-0-main" pipeline, we would > instead create "apache-release-1-13-main" > iii. Instead of cleaning up the pipeline and branch after 1.13.0 was > released, we could keep it around for 9 months and re-use it for collecting > patches and making patch releases during that time. > +1 I cannot see any argument against cutting a release branch for the minor version and keeping it around.
The community process around deciding how long to gather fixes before > shipping a patch release isn’t any easier either way. How about we wait for someone to call out the need to ship a patch release. At that point we use the rule of thumb "aim for no more than 1 patch release per minor per month" to guide our community discussion. I would like to see more discussion on the community impact of increasing > the commitment required of a release manager. In the short term it would > be good for Geode to have someone focused on improving the release process > for a longer period of time than a single release. But in the long term, > people may be less likely to volunteer, and release experience will be > concentrated in fewer members of the community... Are there more things that could be automated? When I filled the role ~1 year ago there was lots of copying and pasting of scripts and I even wrote one to help validate fixVersions. Although release process automation should probably be taken to a different discussion, since it's mostly separate form Anthony's proposal. On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 11:06 AM Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io> wrote: > These concerns make sense. We could satisfy them within our existing > “on-demand” process: > > 1) the first time there is a change to backport to support branches, > propose the patch release. Now we have a branch. Decide as a community > how urgently it needs to be released vs how long to hold it open for other > potential fixes. > > Or, we could emphasize the shift in process with bigger changes: > i. Instead of cutting "release/1.13.0" on May 4, we could instead cut > "support/1.13" > ii instead of creating "apache-release-1-13-0-main" pipeline, we would > instead create "apache-release-1-13-main" > iii. Instead of cleaning up the pipeline and branch after 1.13.0 was > released, we could keep it around for 9 months and re-use it for collecting > patches and making patch releases during that time. > > The community process around deciding how long to gather fixes before > shipping a patch release isn’t any easier either way. > > One advantage of our current process is that a release doesn’t happen > until someone volunteers to make it happen. We can do as many or as few > patch releases as the community is willing -- a release always has a > champion. > > I would like to see more discussion on the community impact of increasing > the commitment required of a release manager. In the short term it would > be good for Geode to have someone focused on improving the release process > for a longer period of time than a single release. But in the long term, > people may be less likely to volunteer, and release experience will be > concentrated in fewer members of the community... > > > > On Feb 25, 2020, at 9:29 AM, Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > > Here’s a couple things I’d like to avoid: > > > > 1) Issuing a patch release for every single commit that we back port > onto a supported minor version. This seems like a high cost approach. Of > course, some issues may be important enough to require that. > > > > 2) Merging a change to develop, and then having to come back weeks later > and back porting the change to a release branch. It just seems less > optimal since I’ll have lost the context on the changes, particularly if > the cherry-pick is non-trivial. > > > > More comments below. > > > > Anthony > > > > > >> On Feb 24, 2020, at 2:16 PM, Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Alexander, currently we don’t start a patch release until someone > proposes a critical fix, which then drives the release (the community may > propose “extra” fixes to tag along once a release branch is cut). This > keeps the process simple, neat and tidy. > >> > >> Another option I hadn’t thought of is to begin collecting “extra” fixes > proactively on a “dormant” branch, so that when someone finally proposes > releasing a patch, it will already be primed with a bunch of fixes. This > adds complexity (does a different standard apply to bring fixes to a > dormant branch? Are release branches separate from support branches? How > will committers be able to keep track of what is dormant and what is not?) > >> > > > > Why not just either a) keep the release branch alive? Or b) create a > support branch from the release tag? > > > >> To implement an N-2 support policy, does it make more sense for Geode > to make small focused patch releases when needed, or to maintain what > amounts to “3 develop branches at all times”? > >> > > > > To me, “develop branch” implies ongoing work. I’m proposing “support > branch” which means only important changes agreed upon by the project > community. > > > > > >> > >>> On Feb 24, 2020, at 11:00 AM, Alexander Murmann <amurm...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks for proposing this, Anthony! > >>> > >>> > >>>> I don’t think it’s necessary for this proposal to re-define or clarify > >>>> what constitutes a critical fix; it sounds like the bar would be the > same > >>>> as the standard we already apply when back-porting to release branches > >>>> (proposal /w justification, and 3 votes in favor). The only > difference > >>>> seems to be that now proposals may list up to three target branches, > not > >>>> just one. > >>>> > >>> re: Owen > >>> TL;DR: +1 using the same process as we use for merging critical fixes > >>> during an ongoing release seems appropriate. > >>> > >>> Generally merging a fix to a dormant release branch seems less > problematic > >>> than merging a fix to an active release branch where a merge will > reset all > >>> release work that has already happened. The cost of merging to a > >>> dormant release branch is much lower than merging to one that's being > >>> actively released. Ideally we could just do a PR to merge fixes back in > >>> most cases. Unfortunately, I believe it's unreasonable to expect that > >>> everyone will be aware at all times what's actively being released and > >>> what's not => Let's pretend we are always shipping these branches. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 7:35 PM Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> Thank you Anthony for proposing this “N-2” support policy. It isn’t > a big > >>>> change, but it is helpful to know that the Geode PMC will now be > standing > >>>> behind (and ready to vote on) patch releases within a 9-month window. > >>>> > >>>> Overall, this sounds much like how 1.9.1 and 1.9.2 started as > community > >>>> proposals, found a release manager, and went on to be successfully > released. > >>>> > >>>> I don’t think it’s necessary for this proposal to re-define or clarify > >>>> what constitutes a critical fix; it sounds like the bar would be the > same > >>>> as the standard we already apply when back-porting to release branches > >>>> (proposal /w justification, and 3 votes in favor). The only > difference > >>>> seems to be that now proposals may list up to three target branches, > not > >>>> just one. > >>>> > >>>> I also don’t think it’s necessary to alter our current process to > maintain > >>>> a standing "support/x.y" branch. The proposal states that patch > releases > >>>> will be “ad-hoc (as needed)”. Our current process serves this quite > well: > >>>> we propose a patch release at the time it is needed, then get a > release > >>>> manager and create a release branch specifically for that release > (e.g. > >>>> release/1.9.2 was created from the rel/v1.9.1 tag), then clean up > >>>> afterwards so no unattended pipelines or branches linger. > >>>> > >>>> The rotating release manager role has been a hallmark of the Geode > >>>> community process, so I hope this proposal will not dissuade anyone > >>>> interested in helping with a release. However, getting the automation > >>>> improvements we need will require some continuity over several > releases. I > >>>> would love to volunteer for this! > >>>> > >>>> -Owen > >>>> > >>>>> On Feb 21, 2020, at 5:30 PM, Anthony Baker <aba...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi everyone, > >>>>> > >>>>> I'd like to propose shipping patch releases of Geode as a way to > >>>>> improve our engagement and support of our user community. Please > >>>>> review the details in the linked RFC [1] and kindly offer your > >>>>> thoughts in this thread. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> Anthony > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] > >>>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Shipping+patch+releases > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >
