If we want to have an stable branch(or branches)
Some thinks will need to define are:
Given that we break the compatibility very easy ( I think now is broken) maintain each version serie (1.1.x , 1.2.x., etc) will increase our maintenance efforts.
Do we want to maintain every new release we do ? Or should we pick only one and define a time to be maintained (6 months , 1 yr)?
Having more than one branch we maintain we will need to rework the packaging provision.
- Does OBS supports multiples channels to have an stable or edge or testing? If not will need to create a new repository every time we do a new release?
- Also will need to fix the packaging scripts to make them easy to package any kata version. Today is need to update the the scripts if there are new dependencies or new files provided in a package.
- The same applies to snap, I think will be more easy to maintain this.
- Carlos
From: Boeuf, Sebastien Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 1:24 PM To: Ernst, Eric eric.ernst@intel.com; Fox, Kevin M Kevin.Fox@pnnl.gov; Venegas Munoz, Jose Carlos jose.carlos.venegas.munoz@intel.com; akapoor87@gmail.com; rajudev rajudev@disroot.org Cc: kata-dev@lists.katacontainers.io Subject: RE: [kata-release] release cadence, process
Yes, IIRC we agreed (during Arch Committee meeting) about releasing as much 1.1.X releases as we want since they will only include bug fixes.
Now, on a side note, we'll hit the topic of creating a new branch when we'll have a change breaking the compatibility, but that we'll want to still get the bug fixes into new releases. That's where the complexity starts and where we need to decide about a backporting plan.
Thanks, Sebastien ________________________________ From: Ernst, Eric [eric.ernst@intel.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 11:10 AM To: Fox, Kevin M; Venegas Munoz, Jose Carlos; akapoor87@gmail.commailto:akapoor87@gmail.com; rajudev Cc: kata-dev@lists.katacontainers.iomailto:kata-dev@lists.katacontainers.io Subject: Re: [kata-dev] [kata-release] release cadence, process Assuming that the release isn't changing any APIs, etc. If its just a bug fix, it would allow this.
If any incompat is introduced it'd be a 0.x.0 update.
--Eric
From: "Fox, Kevin M" <Kevin.Fox@pnnl.govmailto:Kevin.Fox@pnnl.gov> Date: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 11:09 AM To: Eric Ernst <eric.ernst@intel.commailto:eric.ernst@intel.com>, "Venegas Munoz, Jose Carlos" <jose.carlos.venegas.munoz@intel.commailto:jose.carlos.venegas.munoz@intel.com>, "akapoor87@gmail.commailto:akapoor87@gmail.com" <akapoor87@gmail.commailto:akapoor87@gmail.com>, rajudev <rajudev@disroot.orgmailto:rajudev@disroot.org> Cc: "kata-dev@lists.katacontainers.iomailto:kata-dev@lists.katacontainers.io" <kata-dev@lists.katacontainers.iomailto:kata-dev@lists.katacontainers.io> Subject: RE: [kata-release] release cadence, process
Based on your 0.0.x comment, I think I know, but am verifying...
This would still allow upgrading some components while running older components on the same host?
Thanks, Kevin ________________________________ From: Ernst, Eric [eric.ernst@intel.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 10:59 AM To: Venegas Munoz, Jose Carlos; akapoor87@gmail.commailto:akapoor87@gmail.com; rajudev Cc: kata-dev@lists.katacontainers.iomailto:kata-dev@lists.katacontainers.io Subject: [kata-dev] [kata-release] release cadence, process Carlos et al,
I am proposing that we continue to roll releases; we are having a good amount of fixes merge and I think it warrants having a regular weekly cadence (likely a 0.0.x update). I believe we discussed this before - let's start driving it.
Carlos, Raju, Akshay - from prior emails/request for volunteers, you were all listed for folks to help with packaging and release. Carlos, is the process defined enough that you think we can start rotating the release duties among more stakeholders?
WDYT?
Thx, Eric