That distinction is important: platforms continue monthly release cadence. CLI tools are continuous delivery.
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > Agree with both of you: we should be tagging the tooling. Currently we > follow the standard monthly release process that we apply to platforms. WE > should probably change that. > > +1 to documenting release process. I will take time to do so for cli + > plugman > > Email is the way to go. LEt's not mire ourselves with JIRA issues that > committers may or may not receive notifications for. To Anis' point, my > approach has been to notify interested parties on a particular feature/bug > fix on a) the specific JIRA issues and b) the list if it is a sweeping > change or a big feature. Sounds like we want to continue with this. > > So what shakes out here is: we need to figure out what the release process > is for things that are on a different (more continuous?) release schedule > compared to the platform implementations. > > On 7/31/13 11:54 AM, "Anis KADRI" <anis.ka...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>I think that is what we have been doing so far. We have been sending >>an email out and waiting around 24 hours to give everyone a chance to >>chime in. >> >>As far as process, this is how I have been doing it: >>- Implement a feature/patch >>- Write/run tests. >>- Push to master. >>- If it's a patch that fixes an issue then bump the version push it to >>npm. Otherwise wait for next patch to do that. >> >>Missing: I think that every time we bump a version we should also tag >>that version. >> >>-a >> >>On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> >>wrote: >>> Right - yes, my goal is not to slow things down. Rather - if you go on >>> vacation, I'd like the releases to keep coming and not stop with there >>> being no instructions on how to do them (or worse - me pushing to npm >>> incorrectly and breaking the world). E.g. are you pushing master? or are >>> you working off of a 3.0.x release branch that's just for bugfix >>> cherry-picks. >>> >>> I would like to increase visibility of releases though. I know you often >>> email out when you update npm, but it's a lot of work to know what >>>you've >>> released. E.g. I know Anis is working on the registry, and in my eyes >>> that's not a patch version type release. But has it gone out to npm >>> already? Bug fixes are fine for patch releases, but new features are >>>not. >>> >>> I actually dislike using JIRA for releases quite a bit. Maybe an email >>> would suffice? I do think it would be worth emailing before releasing >>> though. Even if it delays things 24 hours (I agree 72 hours seems >>> excessive). >>> >>> The voting is not very useful for this project I don't think, but a >>>second >>> set of eyes goes a long way for sanity-checking what goes live. Maybe >>>the >>> npm process could involve getting agreement / sign-off from 2 devs? >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I think Anis meant patch releases (we already create jira issues for >>>>minor >>>> releases, which come every month) >>>> >>>> On 7/31/13 11:26 AM, "Anis KADRI" <anis.ka...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >I agree with Fil. I am ok with tagging every npm release but I don't >>>> >think creating a Jira issue for minor point releases will be really >>>> >beneficial. >>>> > >>>> >On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: >>>> >> I'd like to avoid a voting / consensus process _for EVERY RELEASE_ >>>>if >>>> >> possible. >>>> >> >>>> >> We are including the tools in our monthly releases, and that I >>>>think is >>>> >> good enough in terms of following Apache process. This way there's >>>>lazy >>>> >> consensus per minor release. >>>> >> >>>> >> Being able to publish revisions to npm and fix bugs that way has >>>>been a >>>> >> positive experience for devs as well as users. Don't know why we >>>>would >>>> >> want to change that. Quick patch releases have been great for >>>>building >>>> >> confidence in our tools within our community. >>>> >> >>>> >> Filing a JIRA issue for every patch release is super overkill and >>>>doing >>>> >> lazy consensus for that seems even worse. We've had 5 patch >>>>releases so >>>> >> far since 3.0.0. Lazy consensus requires 72 hours of email >>>>fermentation. >>>> >> So that would mean we can release a max of 10 releases per month? >>>> >>Doesn't >>>> >> make sense to me. >>>> >> >>>> >> Tagging every npm release makes a lot of sense for all of our tools >>>>/ >>>> >> plugins, but to be noted that we release tools/plugins differently >>>>than >>>> >> platforms, so figuring out the differences there would be a good >>>>idea. >>>> >> >>>> >> On 7/31/13 10:54 AM, "Andrew Grieve" <agri...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >>>We're telling people to install plugman & cordova via npm, but we're >>>> >>>publishing updates to npm on a regular basis without any sort of >>>>release >>>> >>>process. True? >>>> >>> >>>> >>>Or maybe npm has a way to publish dev versions that people won't >>>>pick up >>>> >>>by >>>> >>>default? >>>> >>> >>>> >>>Either way, I'll start the ball rolling here: >>>> >>> >>>> >>>For a of any of our pieces (npm, plugins, platforms), I think it's a >>>> >>>must >>>> >>>to have a wiki page documenting the release process. We have this >>>>for >>>> >>>platforms (although it needs updating now that we're 3.0), but we >>>>need >>>> >>>this >>>> >>>for plugins & npm modules as well now. >>>> >>> >>>> >>>A release process should : >>>> >>>1 - include testing procedures to follow when releasing >>>> >>>2 - be detailed enough that anyone can perform the release >>>> >>>3 - include a JIRA release issue to track the occurrence of the >>>>release. >>>> >>>4 - include creating a git tag for the release >>>> >>> >>>> >>>Anything else? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>All releases should also have a vote (even if it's recorded through >>>>a >>>> >>>JIRA >>>> >>>issue). This is stated in the apache rules, but also serves the >>>>purpose >>>> >>>of >>>> >>>making a release a team release instead of an individual release). >>>>I'd >>>> >>>like >>>> >>>to see a release vote happen as an email that includes: >>>> >>>1 - Main motivation for the release (even if it's just "time has >>>> >>>passed") >>>> >>>2 - The changelog since the previous release. >>>> >>> >>>> >>>Make sense? >>>> >>> >>>> >>>Andrew >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >
