[Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 Release Process Questions

[Dennis Kliban]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 11:50 AM, Eric Helms <ehelms at redhat.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>
>
You are correct in your understanding.


> 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/20180417/94827f4a/attachment.htm>