[feedhenry-dev] RFC: MCP-standalone Release Process

[David Martin]

Those release steps sound logical to me.

It allows getting all apbs and the mcp version locked down so it can be
tested and shared.

As its mostly scripted already, it's setting us up nicely for automating
the entire upstream release process.

Having the various git repos tagged too is important to allow for
downstream productisation, and  identifying when changes or bugs get
introduced



On 26 October 2017 at 08:52, Matthias Wessendorf <mwessend at redhat.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Phil Brookes <pbrookes at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey Matthias,
>>
>> Now, the (three) dependent APBs of the MCP also need to be released. This
>>> requires a bit of manual steps, as described here:
>>> https://github.com/matzew/mcp-standalone/blob/Release_Proces
>>> s/docs/Release.md#mcp-included-apbs
>>>
>>> 1) manual modify the openshift template (which is included in the
>>> dependent APBs)
>>> 2) creating image tags and pushing all to dockerhub (-> make apbs )
>>>
>>
>> If the APBs that are currently included in the mcp-standalone repo were
>> in their own separate repos (just like keycloak, 3scale, etc are currently)
>> would that remove the requirement for these manual steps?
>>
>
> no - these three guys (android, ios, cordova) are special ABPs :-) They
> are MCPs, and they need the updated template.
> With a separated repo, they would each need a PR to get the updated
> version.
>
>
>
>> ​ I think it would be superior if we could have a standard workflow that
>> all APBs follow, rather than some APBs working one way and some working
>> another and requiring developers to remember which is which.
>>
>
> So yeah, I think these three are a bit special :)
>
> BTW. yesterday on IRC Craig suggested at our F2F in a couple of weeks we
> all sit down and discuss a good approach for this. He mentione kubernetes,
> where different things are in their own repos, but sync'd to the main one
> (no damn gitsubmodules)
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Phil.​
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <mwessend at redhat.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> as a follow up on [1], here are some thoughts on the MCP release itself.
>>>
>>> The raw process is described here:
>>> https://github.com/matzew/mcp-standalone/blob/Release_Proces
>>> s/docs/Release.md#mcp-release
>>>
>>> The first part is trivial (but not complete), we simply create a TAGGED
>>> (versioned) image, and push it to docker. Afterwards the mcp-standalone in
>>> dockerhub is updated.
>>>
>>> What's missing here is creation of a canonical TAG in git, more later;
>>>
>>> Now, the (three) dependent APBs of the MCP also need to be released.
>>> This requires a bit of manual steps, as described here:
>>> https://github.com/matzew/mcp-standalone/blob/Release_Proces
>>> s/docs/Release.md#mcp-included-apbs
>>>
>>> 1) manual modify the openshift template (which is included in the
>>> dependent APBs)
>>> 2) creating image tags and pushing all to dockerhub (-> make apbs )
>>>
>>>
>>> In 2) we also modify code, by copying the template over, for that I've
>>> added a "release" commit in the Makefile target:
>>> https://github.com/matzew/mcp-standalone/commit/8d693cc6b2d5
>>> 8d9a2d83e33ea6cf9e31ce8bcac5
>>>
>>> But we still have a locally modified file on the disk (the original
>>> openshift template). This is bad.
>>> The changes to the template must be committed before we can actually
>>> move on. To enforce that, I've added the following to the "make apbs"
>>> target:
>>> https://github.com/feedhenry/mcp-standalone/commit/260fd8686
>>> 8e7d12fb33197bf1ca9672a2f7d4b1a#commitcomment-25186889
>>>
>>> if there are not committed files, the "make apbs" fails- this is
>>> inspired by the awesome ;-) Maven Release Plugin.
>>>
>>> As the last step, after the different pushes to dockerhub
>>> (mcp-standalone and its dependent APBs), we must create a release tag in
>>> git, and push it.
>>>
>>> Only with these "rules" (e.g. no locally modified files, and proper
>>> release tags, we end up having both in sync dockerhub images, and the
>>> matching TAG in git)
>>>
>>> I think these new rules help to get a more solid release, and with a bit
>>> of work can be applied by some "release script"
>>>
>>> But before hacking too much, I am generally interested in feedback on
>>> these already committed changes.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Matthias
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/feedhenry-dev/2017-Octob
>>> er/msg00114.html
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Project lead AeroGear.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> feedhenry-dev mailing list
>>> feedhenry-dev at redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Project lead AeroGear.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> feedhenry-dev mailing list
> feedhenry-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
>
>


-- 
David Martin
Red Hat Mobile
Twitter: @irldavem
IRC: @irldavem (feedhenry, mobile-internal)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/feedhenry-dev/attachments/20171026/e704f1a3/attachment.htm>