[Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 Release Process Questions

[Eric Helms]

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 4:40 PM, Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Patrick Creech <pcreech at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Pulp,
>>
>> So, while working on the packaging work, I figured it be nice to start
>> talking about release process expectations around nightlies, beta, and GA.
>>
>> Generally, what is pulp's release plan?  What are the expectations here?
>>
>>
> The release process for Pulp 3 will be different from what we do for Pulp
> 2. Our plan for publishing Pulp 3 with quality to PyPI is outlined on our
> wiki[0]. We are hoping to be able to release to PyPI once a week during the
> beta cycle. After the packages are published to PyPI,  any of the
> derivative packaging (RPM, Debian, etc) can be performed. The build team
> can decide how often the derivative packages need to be produced.
>

This implies that, for the Pulp developer team, Pypi is considered the
release vector and that derivative release vectors (e.g. RPM, Deb, etc.)
are considered community contributions that are not part of the core
release process. Is that a fair summary of the position? Consumers of
non-pypi release vectors will need to assume a delay between announced
release and RPM release. Which then, unlike Pulp 2, means the team handling
RPM for example would manage build and release announcement on our own
schedule. I want to clarify so that we set expectations for developers and
users and so that we can set our expectations for how we shift compared to
Pulp 2.

If the above is the agreed workflow (and change for Pulp 3) I think the
rest of the questions I'd ask related to the points below are answered and
we can talk a bit further on these points above.

- Eric


>
> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Continuous_Delivery_of_Pulp_3
>
>
>> And also, more specifically,
>>
>> Based on what we do for pulp 2, when will pulp 'code freeze'? What is the
>> expected turnaround from 'code freeze to 'packages shipped'.  We should
>> probably agree on some expectations of turnaround
>> time.
>>
>>
> The code will be frozen when it is published to PyPI.
>
>
>> Is there a staging process in place yet for packages (pypi or rpm)? Is
>> there testing expectations of these pre-release bits to ensure quality?
>> With pypi being a valid install location, are these
>> releases to be coordinated?
>>
>>
> As outlined on the wiki, we plan to ensure quality at merge time of every
> commit.
>
>
>> Where are pulp 3 bits expected to be hosted?  How are we going to handle
>> signing packages?
>>
>
> Pulp 3 will always be published to PyPI. Any derivative packages can be
> hosted on fedorapeople.org. I'd like to defer to someone else to speak
> about the signing.
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20180417/ba5e43f8/attachment.htm>