I say +1 in order to move forward with the 10. On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 21:45, Alex Porcelli <a...@porcelli.me> wrote:
> +1 > > I spent the last day or so working closely with Tiago, exploring different > options and getting deeper on the impact and evaluating the overall release > procedure steps required. I agree with the proposal as the most > viable option for unblocking the 10 release in the reasonable time frame. > > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 3:45 PM Tiago Bento <tiagobe...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > Unfortunately, I can't do a tl;dr this time, as this matter requires a > > lot of context. > > > > This email will take you < 20 minutes to read, according to > > https://thereadtime.com/. > > > > As you may have followed on a separate thread > > (https://lists.apache.org/thread/nknm6j641qk2c7cl621tsy3fy98tsc69), > > many of us were working towards removing a circular dependency > > currently present between `kogito-apps` and `kie-tools`. As we > > progressed towards a solution, we kept finding the circular dependency > > pop up somewhere else. I'll do a breakdown of the things we did, and > > the results we had. > > > > Right now, even though we started the effort to move the Quarkus Dev > > UI modules to `kie-tools`, we haven't been able to do it yet, as we've > > been busy upgrading KIE Tools to Java 17, Maven 3.9.6, and Quarkus > > 3.2.9, compatible with Kogito Runtimes 999-20240218-SNAPSHOT. This > > effort was concluded this Monday, with > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-tools/pull/2136. > > > > The current scenario we have is: > > > > 01. incubator-kie-kogito-runtimes > > |==> 02. incubator-kie-kogito-apps > > C | 03. incubator-kie-kogito-examples > > Y | 04. incubator-kie-kogito-images > > C | 05. incubator-kie-kogito-serverless-operator > > L | ========================== > > E | 06. incubator-kie-sandbox-quarkus-accelerator > > |==> 07. incubator-kie-tools > > > > > > * As `kie-tools`/extended-services depends on > > `kogito-apps`/jitexecutor; > > * and `kogito-apps`/{sonataflow,bpmn}-quarkus-devui depend on > > `kie-tools`/{many packages} > > > > > > After moving the Quarkus Dev UIs to `kie-tools`, we would've had: > > > > 01. incubator-kie-kogito-runtimes > > 02. incubator-kie-kogito-apps > > 03. incubator-kie-kogito-examples > > C |==> 04. incubator-kie-kogito-images > > Y | 05. incubator-kie-kogito-serverless-operator > > C | ===================== > > L | 06. incubator-kie-sandbox-quarkus-accelerator > > E |==> 07. incubator-kie-tools > > > > * As `kie-tools`/kn-plugin-workflow depends on > > `kogito-images`/kogito-swf-devmode; > > * and `kogito-images`/kogito-swf-devmode depends on > > `kie-tools`/sonataflow-quarkus-devui > > > > > > After moving the `kogito-swf-devmode` image to `kie-tools`, we would've > > had: > > > > 01. incubator-kie-kogito-runtimes > > 02. incubator-kie-kogito-apps > > 03. incubator-kie-kogito-examples > > 04. incubator-kie-kogito-images > > C |==> 05. incubator-kie-kogito-serverless-operator > > Y | ===================== > > C | 06. incubator-kie-sandbox-quarkus-accelerator > > L |==> 07. incubator-kie-tools > > E > > > > * As `kie-tools`/kn-plugin-workflow depends on > > `kogito-serverless-operator`; > > * and `kogito-serverless-operator` depends on > > `kie-tools`/kogito-swf-devmode > > > > > > Clearly, we have a much bigger problem than a simple circular dependency. > > > > After multiple conversations with a lot of people, it's been really > > hard coming up with a simple solution that makes it possible to build > > Apache KIE in one shot, while preserving the way everyone is used to > > contributing to the multiple repositories we have. More than that, > > while making this assessment, I found more problems that, in my > > perspective, block Apache KIE 10. > > > > In light of that difficulty, I'm coming forward with my proposal for > > the Apache KIE release process, so we can use Apache's mechanisms to > > have a slower-paced, in-depth debate about this really complicated > > matter. > > > > I'll lay out my entire perspective about the current situation of our > > codebase, as well as problems I can currently see. I'll start with an > > analysis of the repositories and their purposes, point out some > > problems that I believe are blocking our 10 release, explain my > > proposal and discuss some consequences to what I'm proposing. > > > > Let's begin. > > > > > > # THE APACHE KIE REPOS > > > > A. DROOLS OPTAPLANNER, & KOGITO (count: 11) > > - incubator-kie-kogito-pipelines @ `main` > > - incubator-kie-drools @ `main` > > - incubator-kie-optaplanner @ `main` > > - incubator-kie-optaplanner-quickstarts @ `main` > > - incubator-kie-kogito-runtimes @ `main` > > - incubator-kie-kogito-apps @ `main` > > - incubator-kie-kogito-examples @ `main` > > - incubator-kie-kogito-images @ `main` > > - incubator-kie-kogito-serverless-operator @ `main` > > - incubator-kie-kogito-docs @ `main` > > - incubator-kie-docs @ `main-kogito` > > > > B. TOOLS (count: 2) > > - incubator-kie-sandbox-quarkus-accelerator @ `0.0.0` > > - incubator-kie-tools @ `main` > > > > C. BENCHMARKS (count: 2) > > - incubator-kie-kogito-benchmarks @ `main` > > - incubator-kie-benchmarks @ `main` > > > > D. ARCHIVED (count: 1) > > - incubator-kie-kogito-operator > > > > E. "NON-CODE" (count: 5) > > - incubator-kie-issues @ `main` > > (Issues only, README should be updated @ `main`. Same for GitHub > > Actions workflows.) > > - incubator-kie-kogito-website @ `main` > > (The Kogito website. Develop & deploy at the `main` branch.) > > - incubator-kie-website @ `main` > > (The KIE website. Develop @ `main`. Push @ `deploy` to update the > > website.) > > - incubator-kie-kogito-online @ `gh-pages` > > (GitHub pages used to host sandbox.kie.org and KIE Tools' Chrome > > Extension assets.) > > - incubator-kie-kogito-online-staging @ `main` > > (Same as above, but for manual sanity checks during the staging > > phase of a release.) > > > > TOTAL (count: 21) > > > > I grouped the repositories by category, and listed them in a > > topological order. Keep in mind that when flattening out a tree, there > > are multiple possibilities. For example, OptaPlanner could've been > > placed in any position after Drools. > > > > Category A repos are what I've been referring to as `drools` and > > `kogito-*` stream. Of course OptaPlanner is inside that stream, as the > > way these repositories reference each other are through Maven > > SNAPSHOTs. More specifically, the 999-SNAPSHOT version. This mechanism > > is well-known to the team, and although flawed for intra-day builds > > and disruptive for people in many different time zones, it is already > > very comfortable for everyone to work with, I assume. > > > > Contributions made to Category A have some dedicated pipelines, which > > are, at least to some extent, able to build cross-repo PRs together > > and verify that the codebase will continue working as expected after > > they're all merged. From what I could gather, there are some > > "sub-streams" currently configured for cross-repo PRs. > > > > - kogito-pipelines > > - drools, kogito-runtimes, kogito-apps, and kogito-examples > > - optaplanner, and optaplanner-quickstarts > > - kogito-images, and kogito-serverless-operator > > - kogito-docs > > - kie-docs > > > > This means that sending cross-repo PRs to any combination of repos > > that are not part of the same "sub-stream" cannot be verified before > > merging, making our contribution model dependent on individual > > contributors building stuff on their machines to verify that it works. > > > > I based this analysis on > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-pipelines/blob/main/.ci/project-dependencies.yaml > > , > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-optaplanner/blob/main/.ci/buildchain-project-dependencies.yaml > > , > > and > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-pipelines/blob/main/.ci/jenkins/config/branch.yaml > > . > > Note that I'm not that familiar with these pipelines, so please > > someone correct me if I'm wrong. > > > > Category B repos are what I've been referring to as `kie-tools` > > stream. The first repo there is a template repository that is used by > > people starting projects from scratch on KIE Sandbox, similar to a > > Maven archetype, if you will. The other one is the KIE Tools monorepo, > > a polyglot monorepo with `pnpm` as its build system. Currently, KIE > > Tools hosts Java libraries and apps, TypeScript libraries and apps, Go > > apps, Docker images, and Helm charts. The `kie-tools` monorepo is > > configured to work with sparse checkouts and can do partial builds. > > Category B repos refer to Category A repos through timestamped > > SNAPSHOTs. This is a new mechanism we recently introduced that will > > build and publish immutable, persistent artifacts under a version > > following the 999-YYYYMMDD-SNAPSHOT format, published weekly every > > Sunday night. Timestamped SNAPSHOTs are an evolution to the Kogito > > releases, as we're now targeting one release for all of Apache KIE, so > > we can't have Kogito releases anymore. > > > > An important note here is that Category B repositories have been > > historically kept out of any automations we used to have, way back > > when Kogito started and we had the Business Central (a.k.a. v7) stream > > still going on. For this reason, Category B projects have developed > > their own automations, based on GitHub Actions. Category B repos have > > always depended on Category A repos using fixed versions. If Category > > B repos have had adopted mutable SNAPSHOTs, breaking changes on > > Category A repositories would've had the potential to break Category B > > silently, leaving Category B with a broken development stream, and > > introducing unpleasant surprises for maintainers of Category B repos, > > as historically Category A contributors were not familiar with > > Category B repos. > > > > Contributions made to Category B repos go through a GitHub Actions > > workflow that builds the relevant part of the `kie-tools` monorepo for > > the changes introduced. Changes made to the pipeline itself are also > > picked up as part of PRs, allowing us to do things like atomically > > bumping the Node.js version, for example. More importantly, it allows > > us to upgrade the repository to a new timestamped SNAPSHOT together > > with the changes necessary to make it stay green. > > > > This setup, however, makes it impossible to have cross-repo PRs > > involving Category A and Category B simultaneously, with the current > > automations we have. > > > > Category C repos are kind of floating around, and I'm not sure if > > there's much activity going on there. Regardless, as they're part of > > Apache KIE, they will be part of our release, so I listed them for us > > to take them into consideration too. > > > > Category D is self explanatory. There's only one repo that has already > > been marked for being archived. > > > > Category E are repos that do not host code directly, and are either > > organizational entities, or host websites, that currently are not part > > of any pipelines we have. > > > > This lack of unification between Category A and Category B is, IMHO, > > what allowed us to introduce the infamous circular dependency between > > `kie-tools` and `kogito-apps`, which we now can describe as a circular > > dependency between Category A and Category B. The way I see it, if we > > had a single pipeline, building everything from `drools` to > > `kie-tools`, such flaws would've never been introduced, and we > > wouldn't be having this huge problem in our hands right now. > > > > My proposal for the Apache KIE release process sees this lack of > > unification as a central problem, not only for this release in > > particular, but for the community as a whole. It is my belief that we > > are all under the same roof, and that no contribution should be > > allowed to break any part of our codebase. With the increasing volume > > of code, and hopefully number of contributors too, we cannot keep > > counting on "common sense" to avoid breaking things. We're all humans > > after all, and it is our job to have mechanisms in place to prevent us > > from unwillingly making mistakes. Especially when these mistakes > > impact on parts of the codebase that we, individually, probably can't > > fix. > > > > > > # THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE RIGHT NOW > > > > P1. Quarkus Dev UIs @ `kogito-apps` depending on kiegroup's KIE Tools > > `0.32.0`. > > See: > > - > > > https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Akiegroup%2Fkogito-apps+path%3Apackage.json+kie-tools&type=code > > > > > > P2. PR open for Kogito SWF images @ `kogito-images` depending on > > kiegroup's KIE Tools `0.32.0`. > > See: > > - > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-tools/tree/main/packages/sonataflow-deployment-webapp > > > > > > P3. DashBuilder @ `kie-tools` depending on kiegroup's `lienzo` and > > `kie-soup` artifacts at version `7.59.0.Final`. > > See: > > - > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-tools/blob/main/packages/dashbuilder/pom.xml#L64 > > - > > > https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fincubator-kie-tools+path%3Apackages%2Fdashbuilder+%24%7Bversion.org.kie%7D&type=code > > > > > > P4. Multiple packages @ `kogito-apps` depending on kiegroup's > > Explainability `1.22.1.Final`. > > * This module was removed from the KIE codebase here: > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-apps/commit/bbb22c06d37e77b97aae6496d74abe43a8cfc965 > > and now lives on > > https://github.com/trustyai-explainability/trustyai-explainability, > > under a different GAV. > > * This new repo depends on Kogito and OptaPlanner, pointing to older > > versions. > > See: > > - > > > https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fincubator-kie-kogito-apps+%3Eexplainability-core%3C&type=code > > - > > > https://github.com/trustyai-explainability/trustyai-explainability/blob/main/pom.xml#L52-L53 > > > > > > P5. `incubator-kie-sandbox-quarkus-accelerator` depending on Kogito > > `1.32.0.Final` and Quarkus `2.15.3.Final`. > > See: > > - > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-sandbox-quarkus-accelerator/blob/0.0.0/pom.xml#L32-L38 > > > > > > P6. Category C repos are out of date and not part of the Category A > > CI/Release pipelines. > > * incubator-kie-kogito-benchmarks: (Current version is `2.0-SNAPSHOT`, > > depending on Kogito without a specific version, only by using > > `http://localhost:8080`) > > * incubator-kie-benchmarks: (Current version is `1.0-SNAPSHOT`, > > pointing to Drools 999-SNAPSHOT and OptaPlanner `8.45.0-SNAPSHOT`) > > > > > > P7. `kie-tools`/packages/kn-plugin-workflow has its E2E disabled after > > upgrading to 999-20240218-SNAPSHOT. > > > > > > In my perspective, P1 and P2 have the same solution, as they both > > suffer from the circular dependency between Category A and Category B. > > As Category A and Category B are both streams that have been really > > active, I see this as a blocker, as there are contributions that > > cannot be done, given that Category A depends on Category B with a > > dephasing of 1 release. > > > > P3 and P4, although not ideal, can be understood as technical debt. > > Depending on unmaintained projects is something we'll always be > > susceptible to, given time. > > > > P5 and P6 are easily fixable, as it's just a matter of making them > > part of the play. > > > > P7 is an isolated problem that won't impact the structure or anything > > that we're talking about here, but it is a regression we introduced > > recently. > > > > Assuming P3 and P4 can be ignored for Apache KIE 10, and that P5, P6, > > and P7 have easy fixes, the only problems left to discuss are P1 and > > P2, which can't be done without a proper proposal. > > > > > > # THE PROPOSAL > > > > I'll try to be very meticulous here, since from my experience, any > > little miscalculation can lead to our release not working out in the > > end. To try and avoid that as much as possible, and make everything we > > can to have a successful Apache KIE 10 release, bear with me. I'll lay > > out a timeline of events that need to happen in order for our release > > to be published, with all artifacts ending up in the right places, but > > first, we need to solve problems P1 and P2. > > > > As you saw at the beginning of this email, all the attempts we made > > left us with the circular dependency showing up at a different place, > > but something all these places have in common is that they're all > > after kogito-apps, and before to Category B. > > > > The first part of my proposal is the following: > > > > S1. We keep the original plan of moving the Quarkus Dev UIs from > > `kogito-apps` to `kie-tools`, together with Management and Task > > consoles from `kogito-images` to `kie-tools`. > > S2. We move the `kogito-swf-devmode` and `kogito-swf-builder` images > > from `kogito-images` to `kie-tools` too. > > S3. We move the entire `kogito-serverless-operator` repo inside a new > > package on `kie-tools`, keeping Git history. > > > > Solutions S1, S2, and S3 together solve problems P1 and P2. Of course > > the rest of https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/967 > > would still be done too. > > > > This doesn't come without consequences, of course, as the > > `kogito-swf-devmode` and `kogito-swf-builder` images, and the > > `kogito-serverless-operator` would be moving from Category A to > > Category B. This move would make them have to reference Category A > > repos through timestamped SNAPSHOTs. Since `kogito-images` and > > `kogito-serverless-operator` are already their own "sub-stream" inside > > Category A, though, contributions made in a cross-repo fashion to this > > "sub-stream" will continue being possible, now via a single PR to > > `kie-tools`. Cross-repo PRs between Category A and Category B will > > continue not being possible, and a 1-week delay between merging > > something on Category A and using it on Category B will still happen. > > > > It's worth mentioning that `kie-tools`, however, does allow for sparse > > checkouts and partial builds, so working with a subset of the monorepo > > is possible and encouraged. Making changes only to > > `packages/kn-plugin-workflow`, for example, will have the PR checks > > run in < 10 minutes, as you can see here: > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-tools/actions/runs/8237244382/job/22525511722?pr=2136 > > . > > We're not compromising when running partial builds too. We know that > > the entire repo will continue working even after only building a small > > subset of the changes. Doing partial or full builds is automatically > > determined by the changes of a PR. > > > > Keep in mind that, even though I'm proposing we move a bunch of > > additional stuff into `kie-tools`, I see this as a TEMPORARY solution > > for our codebase. `kie-tools` would host some additional stuff > > TEMPORARILY so that we can release and continue moving forward. > > > > As I mentioned on other places, `kie-tools` became a polyglot monorepo > > out of necessity, and although I'm really proud of what we achieved > > there so far, I don't think `kie-tools` has a setup that is suitable > > for all the different nuances that compose our community. I'm well > > aware that a polyglot monorepo that does not follow widespread > > conventions will scare some people away, and as much as we've tried to > > make build instructions clear, we can't always get past the prejudice > > some people have towards the "front-end" ecosystem. > > > > With all that said, I keep thinking this is the best course of action > > for us right now. We keep most of our stuff unchanged, we unblock the > > release, and we have a working setup that will suit us well while we > > discuss and reach a conclusion regarding the future of our codebase > > structure. > > > > Let me paint a quick picture here of what our code base would look > > like, repository-wise, if my proposal is accepted: > > > > CATEGORY REPO > > ===================== > > A incubator-kie-kogito-pipelines > > A incubator-kie-drools > > A incubator-kie-optaplanner > > A incubator-kie-optaplanner-quickstarts > > A incubator-kie-kogito-runtimes > > A incubator-kie-kogito-apps > > A incubator-kie-kogito-examples > > A incubator-kie-kogito-images > > A incubator-kie-kogito-docs > > A incubator-kie-kogito-benchmarks > > A incubator-kie-docs > > A incubator-kie-benchmarks > > ===================== > > B incubator-kie-sandbox-quarkus-accelerator > > B incubator-kie-tools > > ===================== > > D incubator-kie-kogito-operator > > ===================== > > E incubator-kie-issues > > E incubator-kie-kogito-website > > E incubator-kie-website > > E incubator-kie-kogito-online > > E incubator-kie-kogito-online-staging > > ===================== > > > > * Category C becomes part of Category A, and > > `kogito-serverless-operator` moves entirely inside `kie-tools`. > > * With `kogito-swf-{builder,devmode}` images and > > `kogito-serverless-operator` inside `kie-tools`, there are no cycles > > anymore, as inside `kie-tools`, we can granularly build: > > 1. packages/sonataflow-deployment-webapp > > 2. packages/sonataflow-quarkus-devui > > 3. packages/sonataflow-images (containing `kogito-swf-builder` and > > `kogito-swf-devmode`) > > 4. packages/sonataflow-operator (contents from > > `kogito-serverless-operator`) > > 5. packages/kn-plugin-sonataflow (`packages/kn-plugin-workflow`, > > but renamed) > > > > The second part of the proposal is the release process itself, > > assuming the structure above is what we have. > > > > Here it is: > > > > 1. Define a timestamped SNAPSHOT to be used as cutting point for > > Category A repos. > > 2. Update Category B repos to point to this timestamped SNAPSHOT, and > > verify that everything is working. > > 3. At this point, with everything working, we can branch out to > > `10.0.x`. Category A from the timestamped SNAPSHOT tag, and Category B > > from `main`. > > 4. All Category A and Category B repos update their versions to > > 10.0.0, in their `10.0.x` branches. > > 5. Update Category B repos to point to Category A repos using the > > 10.0.0 version. > > 6. At this point, we can vote on the release based on the `10.0.x` > > branches, given we don't expect any code changes anymore. > > 7. After voting passes, we're good to start the release process. > > 8. Category A repos follow their manual/automated release process, > > pointing to the `10.0.x` branch. Tags pushed to Git, and built > > artifacts pushed to their registries. > > 9. We wait a little bit for Category A artifacts to be propagated on > > registries. ~1 day. > > 10. Category B repos follow their manual/automated release process, > > pointing to the `10.0.x` branch. Tags pushed to Git, and built > > artifacts pushed to their registries. > > 11. Category D repos are ignored. > > 12. Category E repos can be manually tagged with 10.0.0 from their > > default branches. > > > > More needs to be discussed if we're planning to maintain multiple > > release streams in parallel, but I guess it can wait for after Apache > > KIE 10. > > > > Thank you for reading, and I'm looking forward to hearing back from > > everyone. > > > > Of course, alternative solutions are possible. This email, however, > > summarizes my view of how we should attack the problem, considering > > disruption, required effort, the release process itself, and history. > > Feel free to propose alternatives. This is not a voting thread. > > > > Regards, > > > > Tiago Bento > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org > > > > >
