tqchen commented on code in PR #67: URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/67#discussion_r857567635
########## 0067-quarterly-releases.md: ########## @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +- Feature Name: Release Schedule +- Start Date: 2022-04-21 +- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#67](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/67) + +# Summary +This RFC proposes that TVM move to a quarterly release schedule. Releases would happen every 3 months or so on a schedule set well in advance, independent of individual feature development in TVM. + +# Motivation +Releases are essential to the usage of TVM, especially now that are beginning to work on publishing binary packages for TVM under PyPi. Making TVM releases frequent forces the release process to become well documented and simple rather than bespoke and only achievable by a small group. Users benefit from releases by seeing that the the project is still under active development and providing an easy way to get new features. As of this RFC it has been five months since the last release. It could easily confuse new users when they expect some TVM feature that was only developed recently but is not present in the latest official release. + + +# Guide-level explanation +TVM has [release process documentation](https://tvm.apache.org/docs/contribute/release_process.html). This RFC proposes that the release candidate vote thread be abolished in favor of a mechanical schedule where releases happen roughly every three months. A release branch will be cut, evaluated for a period of two weeks, then a release published. Publishing a release entails: + +* Gathering and organizing release notes since the last release +* Posting a source code release on GitHub Review Comment: would be useful to clarify what is the "official release". The official release is the source code tarball posted to the TVM webpage download section(with the corresponding GPG keys that can be verified) and the apache svn repo. The binary packages, and source code tag on github are "convenient by product" that is not part of the official release. I know it sounds a bit strange. ASF have a quite pedantic approach towards release and licensing. The main retionale is that for people who want to be extra "safe" on licensing implications, they want to go and download from the webpage -- where the source code comes clean without binary dependencies and things can be built from scratch. This pedantic view, however, is also why many organizations trust apache software (e.g. they can be applied without review) Of course for most people the ability to quickly use and try things out is more important. So it is mainly a terminology concern, but does not mean these "convenient byproducts" are not important. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
