On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 11:50 AM, Eric Helms <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 4:40 PM, Dennis Kliban <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Patrick Creech <[email protected]> >> 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 >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pulp-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
