|Re: [incubation] Fast releasing projects|
On 28 Mar 2018, at 10:11, Gunnar Wagenknecht wrote:
Hi Gorkem,On Mar 28, 2018, at 08:52, Gorkem Ercan <gorkem.ercan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: One of our problems with the IP process is we follow a 3 week release cadence with Che. That means that every 3 weeks a new version of Che is released (6.3.0 was released today and 6.4.0 will be in 3 weeks)  However when we need to introduce a new dependency as part of the release we can not really do that in every 3 weeks becausea project is not allowed to do a release without all CQs approved.Have you looked at the Type A/B option? It sounds like the Type A option would be sufficient unless you are concerned about a full scan of your dependencies. However, if you care about the full scan then Parallel IP & Incubation and releasing while such scans are still pending doesn't make sense either.I believe it should be possible to do most of your releases of Type A and only occasionally go through the full process for a Type B release.
Hmm I was not aware that a project can choose Type A/B per release? Is this documented anywhere?
Another issue we face with quick cadences is the release reviews. According to project handbook  a project should do a release review for all Major and Minor releases . (IMHO it is wrong to assume a project will follow major.minor.service versioning but that is a different matter). That requires the Che leads to submit a review every 3 weeks and I am not sure if this is really creating much value. Is there a way to completely automate or give an option to time box the reviews to bequarterly?FWIW, I think having some predictable versioning practices for our community is a good thing. However, a project is free to come up with any "marketing" versioning scheme they want. The major.minor.service doesn't necessarily have to be your public/community facing scheme.Improving (read: shortening) the release review process is something that I'm also interested in. At some point I'd like to see the EDP supporting continuous delivery of projects (eg., daily or with every commit). I also recall discussion with EMO that the documentation requirements could be satisfied with a release notes or changlog document. I suggest opening a Bugzilla with the Architecture Council. It's responsible for having discussions and driving improvements to the EDP.-Gunnar -- Gunnar Wagenknecht gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, http://guw.io/ _______________________________________________ incubation mailing list incubation@xxxxxxxxxxxTo change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
Back to the top