Thanks a lot for amending the proposal.
Although I agree with almost the whole proposal, as pointed out in my
previous e-mails, I did not understand, out of ignorance probably, the need
for a cutting point of Category A before Category B. If the criteria is the
existence of a dependency, following that rule, apps should force a cut
point on runtimes and runtimes should force a cut point on drools. Since we
are not doing that and everything is still working, I think I should rule
out that as an explanation. It is because we need to test with certain
snapshots manually?. Then, the cutting point is almost simultaneous with
the release isnt it?
If that's the case I propose to slightly amend point 2 by adding manually
at the end, so eventually, if we manage to test that automatically, then we
can remove fixed snapshots between repos of category A and B.
2. Update Category B repos to point to this timestamped SNAPSHOT, and
verify that everything is working manually.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:09 PM Alex Porcelli <porce...@apache.org> wrote:
> This is the amended version of the proposal.
>
> # THE PROPOSAL
>
> S1. [Permanent] 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. [Temporary] We copy the `kogito-swf-devmode` and
> `kogito-swf-builder` images from `kogito-images` to `kie-tools` too.
> S3. [Temporary] We copy the entire `kogito-serverless-operator` repo
> inside a new package on `kie-tools`. Disable CI for the operator to
> avoid overlap with kie-tools.
>
>
> List of all repositories that are relevant to Apache KIE 10.0.0 release
>
> CATEGORY REPO
> =====================
> A incubator-kie-drools
> A incubator-kie-optaplanner
> A incubator-kie-kogito-runtimes
> A incubator-kie-kogito-apps
> A incubator-kie-kogito-images
> =====================
> B incubator-kie-sandbox-quarkus-accelerator
> B incubator-kie-tools
>
> * `kogito-serverless-operator` is entirely copied inside `kie-tools`.
> * `kogito-swf-{builder,devmode}` images also copied to `kie-tools`.
> * all other repos are ignored for the Apache KIE 10.0.0 release
>
> This is the updated steps for the release process itself:
>
> 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. Category A and Category B repos update their versions and
> dependencies to 10.0.0 in their `10.0.x` branches.
> 5. Tag 10.0.0-RC1 from `10.0.x`, build source zips and artifacs, and
> publish to staging.
> 6. At this point, we can start the vote on the release based on the
> `10.0.0-RC1` tag.
> 7. After voting passes, we're good to promote Maven artifact from
> staging to release.
> 8. Category A and Category B repos will need a new build to publish
> the release artifacts, except for Maven artifacts which will be
> already promoted in the previous step.
> 9. Once released, remove the temporary code from the `kie-tools`
> repository on `main` (`kogito-swf-{builder,devmode}` images and
> `kogito-serverless-operator` codebase).
> 10. Re-introduce circular dependency in `main` using 10.0.0 fixed
> versions (in `kie-tools`, `kogito-images` and
> `kogito-serverless-operator`) to prevent breaking completely CI.
> Definitive solution must be discussed.
>
> Note: The removal of temporary changes must come after the 10.0.0
> release, otherwise it'll break the CI for `main`.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 1:51 PM Enrique Gonzalez Martinez
> <egonza...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Parties = two different visions of how to achieve this.
> > There were two groups of people arguing how to unblock the situation.
> >
> > I think this was clear for anyone following this thread.
> >
> >
> >
> > El vie, 15 mar 2024, 18:33, Jason Porter <lightguar...@apache.org>
> escribió:
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org
>
>
