Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 13, 2022, at 9:35 PM, Michael Marshall <mmarsh...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks for raising this Yunze. The docker image was added to the VOTE
> threads as a convenience for voters/testers. I don't believe we
> established a formal requirement for it, which might explain why it is
> not in the wiki. It should, however, be listed as an optional step if
> we want it to be one.
>
> I agree with putting the release process in the apache/pulsar git repo.
>
>> we do need to assure that the PMC fully reviews changes
>
> Currently, any committer has access to modify the release docs, so
> this introduces a new requirement. One way to enforce who reviews a PR
> is with a CODEOWNERS file. We could create a GitHub group with PMC
> members and then require that any PR that touches the release process
> documentation file is approved by a PMC member. I am not sure that
> this is the "right" direction though.
There is already a Pulsar PMC / private group in GitHub that is maintained by
ASF infra. We would need to briefly discuss with them if we choose this approach
>
>> Do not make the release docs part of versioned docs.
>
> I agree.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
>
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 10:32 PM Yunze Xu <y...@streamnative.io.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The RM should ask a PMC member to help them add their KEY.
>>> Do not make the release docs part of versioned docs.
>> I agree.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Yunze
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 2022年8月12日 23:10，Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org> 写道：
>>>
>>> Hi -
>>>
>>> One change that needs to be made is regarding the KEYS file.
>>>
>>> We should drop the use of
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/KEYS instead we should
>>> carefully update https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/pulsar/KEYS
>>>
>>> The two KEYS files are currently out of sync. The release file had to be
>>> hand reconstructed at the beginning of the year and I’ve had to deal with
>>> new Release Manager KEYS that were not copied during the Release Process.
>>> (Recently Apache Infra has been scanning release and is informing PMCs when
>>> their releases are broken.)
>>>
>>> The RM should ask a PMC member to help them add their KEY. I’m willing to
>>> do it and I’m certain other PMC members would do the same.
>>>
>>> The VOTE threads can then always refer to a proper KEYS file that will
>>> always be correct. RMs should also make sure that their KEY does not expire
>>> while the release is active which could be for several years. If your KEY
>>> is revoked at some point then please let the PMC know.
>>>
>>> I like moving the Release Docs to the codebase, but we do need to assure
>>> that the PMC fully reviews changes. The reviews that count before squash
>>> and merge must be from PMC members. The reason is that the Pulsar PMC is
>>> responsible for assuring that Pulsar releases comply with Apache Release
>>> Policies.
>>>
>>> Do not make the release docs part of versioned docs. There should be only
>>> the current policy. If other products of the Pulsar project require
>>> different release docs it is fine to have separate docs.
>>>
>>> All The Best,
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>> On Aug 12, 2022, at 7:41 AM, tison <wander4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Penghui & Yunze,
>>>>
>>>> I ever wrote developer guides for TiDB[1] and Apache Kvrocks (Incubating),
>>>> including the release guide for the latter[2].
>>>>
>>>> Just for your information, I'm preparing the proposal to bring a developer
>>>> guide page (series docs). Perhaps start in the next month.
>>>>
>>>> Although, it cannot help the current status, and I don't want to discuss
>>>> details on this topic here. Again, just for your information :)
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> tison.
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://pingcap.github.io/tidb-dev-guide/
>>>> [2] https://kvrocks.apache.org/community/how-to-release
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yunze Xu <y...@streamnative.io.invalid> 于2022年8月12日周五 21:57写道：
>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, I agree. It’s better to move the release process to the codebase.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding the automatic validation program, we can have that for some
>>>>> common verifications like the GPG verification, which only requires a
>>>>> simple
>>>>> command if you have downloaded the binary.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Yunze
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2022年8月12日 18:12，PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> 写道：
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for raising this question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe we'd better move the release process doc and validation doc
>>>>>> to the codebase, not the wiki pages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Only committers can update the wiki pages
>>>>>> - The changes without review
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After moving to the pulsar codebase
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Everyone can contribute to the validation doc
>>>>>> - The release process doc update can get reviewers to review
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think there are multiple issues that need to be resolved for the
>>>>> release
>>>>>> process
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Have the Python client(Linux, osx) at the RC stage, I think currently
>>>>> we
>>>>>> only have the C++ client for RC, but push to pypi after the RC gets
>>>>> passed
>>>>>> - Add validation process for the Python and C++ client
>>>>>> - Add the Go function and Python function validation process
>>>>>> - Add a script for building images for RC
>>>>>> - Add images validation process
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And another point is can we have an automatic validation program to
>>>>> reduce
>>>>>> the burden on validators?
>>>>>> I'm not sure if it is acceptable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Penghui
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 4:50 PM Haiting Jiang <jianghait...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the 7th step is "Write release notes", should we execute this
>>>>>>>> step later?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From what I see, the release note can be postponed after the voting
>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>> And it's not part of the voting content and does not affect whether we
>>>>>>> should cut a new release candidate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In addition, I found the previous candidate [2] includes the docker
>>>>>>>> images, which is not included in the template of the 8th step "Run the
>>>>>>>> vote". It seems to be the 10th step "Publish Docker Images".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Confused +1, If we do add docker image as part of release vote, we
>>>>> should
>>>>>>> also add validation method in [1]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/Release-Candidate-Validation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Haiting
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 9:49 PM Yunze Xu <y...@streamnative.io.invalid>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Recently I'm working on the release of 2.8.4 and it's near the vote of
>>>>>>>> the 1st candidate but I have some questions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From the tutorial [1] we can see, the 8th step is "Run the vote".
>>>>>>>> However, the 7th step is "Write release notes", should we execute this
>>>>>>>> step later? I see the 16th step is also "Write release notes" but the
>>>>>>>> 16th step at the beginning of "Release workflow" section is "Update
>>>>>>>> the site".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In addition, I found the previous candidate [2] includes the docker
>>>>>>>> images, which is not included in the template of the 8th step "Run the
>>>>>>>> vote". It seems to be the 10th step "Publish Docker Images".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems that the documents are not maintained well, which really
>>>>>>>> makes me confused. Therefore, before voting for the 1st candidate, I
>>>>>>>> want to get some clarifications from the mail list.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/Release-process
>>>>>>>> [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/q0g5ko617rb77b1wqpxy94ks5mq48d88
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Yunze
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
