As agreed, here's the link to the PR [1] that removes the Operator and Images from KIE Tools.
Of course, as a consequence - once the PR is merged - main won't be able to be released anymore. [1] - https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-tools/pull/2472 On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 12:51 PM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti <ftira...@redhat.com> wrote: > > 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 > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org
