I think I already did a high level proposal. 1) Remove all dependencies from tooling to images, so images depend on tooling but tooling does not depend on images. 2) Then change CI to deal with tooling repo before dealing with images repo. I understand that CI details are tricky and since I'm not familiar with CI in any way, I barely can make a low level design, but we do not need to fix everything, just achieve 2), a change of compilation order.
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 12:17 PM Alex Porcelli <a...@porcelli.me> wrote: > Francisco and Grabriele, > > You may not like or understand why the current state of the CI is like > that… actually has been in Red Hat and has been replicated in Apache as > used to be…. > > But the fact is that this is the current reality. > > If you disagree with the current plan, please provide a detailed > alternative so we, as community, can better evaluate the pros and cons of > each proposal. > > > I think it’s also fair to say that, post 10 release we need to have a much > in depth discussion about how our codebase is organized, it’s clear that > it’s not working. > > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 6:41 AM Gabriele Cardosi < > gabriele.card...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > As Francisco said, > > I also have the impression that the "images" (if we are talking of docker > > images) should be the very last one to be built, in a standalone repo. > > That way, they may "combine" artifacts that are built in different repos, > > regardless of the order in which those are built. > > Moving them out of all the repos (kogito-apps/kie-tools) maybe could > > simplify the situation a bit. > > (I also think there are some statements of undisputable needs while they > > are, actually, just technical choices. > > Anyway, this latter point is for longer, following, discussion.) > > > > > > > > > > Il giorno mer 13 mar 2024 alle ore 11:23 Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti < > > ftira...@redhat.com> ha scritto: > > > > > Alex, > > > There are two assumptions that deserve further discussion: > > > 1) That tool has to be the last to build. why? it does not have more > > sense > > > to build final images after everything else has been built?- > > > 2) That the impact (in terms of effort now) on fixing CI is bigger than > > the > > > impact (long term consequences) of consolidating two unrelated piece of > > > software within the same repository. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 11:15 AM Alex Porcelli <a...@porcelli.me> > wrote: > > > > > > > Francisco, > > > > > > > > This was discussed as an alternative solution, however it has major > > > impact > > > > on CI and there’s also the fact Tool has been always the last to > build > > > and > > > > has no Snapshot published (actually in JavaScript world there is no > > > > snapshot concept). > > > > > > > > So, based on our evaluation… the proposal here is the least > disruptive > > > and > > > > will take less time to unblock the release. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > _____________ > > > > Alex Porcelli > > > > http://porcelli.me > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 6:09 AM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti < > > > > ftira...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > After kie-tools, sorry. I think we are not embracing the fact that > > > > > kogito-images depend on kie-tools, because we want those images to > > > > include > > > > > tools. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 11:08 AM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti < > > > > > ftira...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tiago, > > > > > > It can be an alternative solution to move kn-plugin-workflow to > > > > > > kogito-images (so there is not longer dependency from tools to > > > images) > > > > > and > > > > > > then build kogito-images after kogito-tools? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 11:01 AM Enrique Gonzalez Martinez < > > > > > > egonza...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> +1 to unblock release > > > > > >> > > > > > >> El mié, 13 mar 2024, 10:48, Pere Fernandez (apache) < > > > > > pefer...@apache.org> > > > > > >> escribió: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > 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 > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
