On 2024/03/15 12:25:22 Enrique Gonzalez Martinez wrote: > +1 to the short term approach as it seems both parties agree into this.
Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "both parties?" Everyone is a contributor, there are no companies within the ASF. We're all one big community. What we do may not align 100% with the tactical ideas of any downstream company, but at the community level, that shouldn't be the driver of things anyway. > Regarding the long term proposal plz move to another thread before someone > starts engaging in this thread about a topic is not relevant for unblocking > the version. > > El vie, 15 mar 2024, 13:20, Kris Verlaenen <kris.verlae...@gmail.com> > escribió: > > > TLDR: A +1 to the proposal from Tiago for the release, with the addition of > > some short term recommendation (on how to revert some of the temporary > > changes) and some perspective on a potential alternative to consider for > > the long term > > > > * Short term: The plan from Tiago describes a strategy that appears to be > > able to solve the build cycle issues we have, allowing us to proceed with > > the 10.0 release. We do realize that some of the changes that are being > > done to be able to do the 10.0 release are going to be temporary. > > Therefore, as part of this proposal, I urge the team to also document how > > we are going to revert some of these temporary changes immediately after > > the release (*). More specifically, my recommendation is that we agree > > that the images and operator folder from kie-tools will be removed again > > and development will continue on the existing repositories. But let’s > > discuss if people see this differently or if there might be other steps. > > The advantage of this approach would be that it allows us to move forward > > with the release, does buy us time to find a consensus on the long-term > > solution and minimizes the impact on the developers regarding temporary > > solutions. And it also requires us to find this consensus before the next > > release. > > > > * Longer term: as discussed to some degree in this thread already, there > > seems to be an alternative to explore where we define more strict > > boundaries (for dependencies) between repositories, and create a build > > chain where images and operator are built after tools. That said, it’s > > fair to say that this proposal needs to be worked out and validated more, > > and initial assessments on the effort related to this, if we don’t want to > > rush into this and do things right, are indicating this might take multiple > > months. We also need to discuss how we will be resourcing this effort. > > And we could potentially combine this with other discussions that we will > > have in the near future. So if we agree to investigate this further, I > > would like to recommend moving forward with the more concrete temporary > > solution that Tiago is proposing for the 10.0 release. > > > > Note that this would mean that at this point, on this thread, we don’t need > > to agree on the specifics of any alternative proposal longer-term, we can > > start a different conversation thread for this. I hope this can convince > > people to +1 the approach as described by Tiago short term for the release, > > with the addition of the recipe how to revert some of the temporary changes > > and the promise to further evaluate longer-term alternatives. For those > > that are interested, I wanted to also give an indication what this proposal > > might mean at a high level from my point of view, which is included below. > > > > Thx, > > Kris > > > > [Optional reading] Alternative longer-term proposal > > > > One could subdivide the work we do in two main streams: one focused more on > > the runtimes, one focused more on the tooling. In general a lot of tooling > > can be built independently from the runtime and vice versa, where they > > communicate with each other through well defined formats or apis. However, > > once we start looking at more advanced use cases and the full end-to-end, > > this is where we need both tooling and runtime together. > > The goal is to create one release pipeline(**). The issue with cyclic > > dependencies between repos is imho twofold: 1) we haven’t been 100% > > consistent in separating runtimes and tooling this way and 2) we haven’t > > accommodated well for use cases where runtime and tooling needs to be > > combined. Note that some of these dependencies might not be build time > > dependencies but test and/or runtime dependencies only. > > As an alternative to one kie-tools monorepo that combines tooling and > > images and operator, I believe we can construct a pipeline where most of > > runtime and tooling can be built independently, but after runtime and > > tooling are built, we complete the build with other > > components/repositories, because they logically rely more on both. > > Examples of components that rely on both are for example be a devui > > extension (a quarkus extension that embeds tooling) or the devmode image > > (that also includes tooling features), or integration testing (where we > > want to test whether tooling and runtime work well together. > > > > More specifically, this would mean > > 1) making sure that there are well-defined boundaries between the core > > runtimes and core tooling so they don’t depend on each other at build > > time. We can decide to move components around where we think that makes > > sense, for example: > > move ui code related to devui into kie-tools (as discussed before) > > move kn-workflow to the operator repository as it more closely related to > > that > > 2) update the CI and release pipelines so that core runtime and tooling > > repositories can be built first, and are followed up by other repositories > > like images and operator, that could then rely on both. > > > > (*) Note that there would be other options technically to achieve this, > > like cutting a release branch early and performing the changes only there, > > but given other work is still ongoing as well, we want to minimize the > > cherry-picking effort. > > (**) Note that while the goal is to create one release pipeline, this > > should not necessarily mean that we can’t have smaller or optimized > > pipelines for CI and daily development, where the impact of changes is > > typically more localized. > > > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 8:45 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 > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org
