-0.7

I suggest we first release 10.1.0 and finish the proposal[1] then build on
top of it based on what we learned.

While a step in right direction, I do not see much benefits in current
state, the proposal suggests we move from 4-repo ( drools, runtimes, apps,
kie-tools )
to 2-repo (kie -> kie-extras), but it seems like a squash of code without
any benefits. Workflows in GHActions still need to be maintained and
release procedure jobs too. The complexity removed in build-chain seems to
be moving to maven modules. We'll know once we execute. I guess.

We should aim for the ability to run tests on pull-requests that depend on
each other in the 2-repo setup as we aimed to do it 4-repo.
Thanks to `build-chain` this is currently done across drools, runtimes,
apps but not all the way to kie-tools because of the weekly-snapshot
mechanism.
Imho that should be a top priority and from my perspective a proposal that
does such a huge change should bring this in as a benefit by default.
For example, a weekly update is created on `kie-extras` and we see blockers
that prevent the update from being merged for 3+ days.
In the meantime a regular progress with `kie` development. That means `kie`
is 3 days ahead of `kie-extras`. There could be extreme situations,
where the update is not merged in weeks and kie-extras has a huge gap of
changes to consume. Does not sound right, that a main branch can get so
outdated on one end.
What will happen in those cases? Is there some policy to handle this
situation? Could you please elaborate on this issue?

The SNAPSHOT's part around kie-extras is not clear at all. Would be nice to
add some details.
The rules in the link you provided, seem clear and can be easily met by our
community.


Lastly, could you please update the proposal to follow [3]?

Thanks,

Dominik

[1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/drojdtvz6xx1zo35ggjm75xdngnfcl21
[2]
https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-pipelines/?tab=readme-ov-file#kogito-pipelines
[3]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=340037098#Guidelinefordiscussion,proposalandvote-ProposalTemplate

Reply via email to