After some off-list discussion, it sounds like we want a new state, and that new state shouldn't be called ON_QA. Would people rather:
a) introduce a new state now? What would it be called? b) use CLOSED - CURRENT RELEASE for now, and revisit the state addition as we get closer to GA? On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 10:26 AM Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> wrote: > Fixing this would improve our process, so I want to do something. I get > stuck on the name ON_QA though. The Pulp3 release process is so different > from the Pulp2 one, the label doesn't make as much sense to me for Pulp3. > Is marking them as CLOSED - CURRENT RELEASE an option? Or maybe introducing > a new label called PRE-RELEASE? For now we could use CURRENT RELEASE as a > simple option until we get into the GA. > > What do you think? > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 9:32 AM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> I noticed in redmine that it's impossible to track which issues have been >> released in an RC vs what has been completed but not yet released. In both >> cases, the status of these issues is MODIFIED. In Pulp 2, we set the status >> to ON_QA when changes have been released in a beta[0]. I wonder if it would >> make sense to set Pulp 3 issues to ON_QA once they have been released with >> an RC? Would it make sense to start this practice with RC3? >> >> [0] >> https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Pulp_2_Release_Planning#Beta-Announcing >> >> David >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:14 PM Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> The RC3 has several items on its blockers list [0], so we will not be >>> releasing on Monday the 24th. The plan is to release when either the >>> blockers are all resolved or on Friday the 28th, whichever comes first. Any >>> remaining blockers will go onto an RC4 blockers list. >>> >>> # Plugin Updates Required >>> One new issue #4990 [1] discussed today during open floor will require a >>> small-but-necessary change for any plugin that implements on-demand >>> policy='streamed' or policy='on_demand'. Specifically you'll need to >>> override the 'policy' field on your detail Remote's serializer to allow for >>> those values. #4990 will include these docs (likely done Mon/Tues), but I >>> wanted to give a heads up. Without this change RC3 will break lazy for your >>> users because they won't be able to make the Remote. >>> >>> Any feedback or ideas are welcome (either on list or off). >>> >>> [0]: https://etherpad.net/p/pulpcore_rc3_blocker_list >>> [1]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4990 >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Brian >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 11:57 AM Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Next Thursday will be 1-month since the pulpcore and pulpcore-plugin >>>> rc2 releases, so it's time to start coordinating rc3. Please give feedback >>>> on any aspect here that could be improved. Feedback and changes are >>>> welcome. >>>> >>>> # rc3 timeline and blockers >>>> I'm proposing June 24th as the rc3 release date. If there is some issue >>>> you want to block pulpcore or pulpcore-plugin's rc3 release please add the >>>> Redmine link onto this blockers etherpad: >>>> https://etherpad.net/p/pulpcore_rc3_blocker_list >>>> >>>> # stable, committed migrations >>>> Based on feedback with RC3 pulpcore and pulpcore-plugin will start >>>> committing migrations and not modifying/rebasing them. We are asking plugin >>>> writers to do the same. This will make consuming new release candidates >>>> easier. It does not mean we are committing that a user could upgrade a RC >>>> system to a GA system. >>>> >>>> # release notes >>>> If you want the rc3 release notes to reflect a piece of work that does >>>> not have an entry in the CHANGES directory, you can still add them. Put >>>> your entries in the CHANGES directory. This should be true of your core and >>>> also plugins who have adopted the towncrier tooling for release notes. >>>> >>>> # version in source >>>> Users are becoming confused in the /status/ API about what bits they >>>> have with source checkouts. To resolve this pulpcore and pulpcore-plugin >>>> will contain the nextVersion.dev as its version going forward. So today >>>> we're applying versions 3.0.0rc3.dev and 0.1.0rc3.dev to pulpcore and >>>> pulpcore-plugin in source control respectively. We are asking plugin >>>> writers to also adopt this approach. On release day we will will drop the >>>> .dev, and then increment it to 3.0.0rc4.dev, etc. >>>> >>>> # releasing rc3 compatible plugins >>>> I don't believe rc3 has any breaking changes in the plugin API >>>> requiring significant updates. For your users to use the RC3, you'll need >>>> to ensure your plugin's setup.py will allow that newer version to be >>>> installer. Please reach out on-list or on IRC if you want any help with >>>> this. >>>> >>>> # exclusively importing from pulpcore.plugin >>>> Please update your plugins to import from pulpcore.plugin exclusively. >>>> Any import that imports from another package underneath pulpcore is not >>>> part of the plugin API. For example imports 'from pulpcore.app.models >>>> import X' should become 'from pulpcore.plugin.models import X'. this is >>>> important to ensure we've got all the necessary objects plugins use >>>> available via the plugin API. >>>> >>>> # When is GA? >>>> There are issues being discovered by Katello as they integrate against >>>> Pulp3. These usability issues also affect general Pulp users. It's nothing >>>> epic, but the changes do produce small backwards incompatible changes. >>>> We'll have more confidence once there are no open Katello integration >>>> blockers. You can see that list here: https://tinyurl.com/y395d4gn >>>> >>>> Also the migration tooling plan is coming along very nicely, but going >>>> to GA requires that work to have progressed further also (I feel). GA-ing >>>> Pulp3 and then realizing we can't migrate pulp2 content effectively into it >>>> would be good to avoid. >>>> >>>> Finally, the RPM plugin, the mainstay of Pulp2's usage, has a few >>>> significant features to develop which could produce some not-insignificant >>>> changes in core. One GA perspective is to wait on rpm to make those feature >>>> and for katello to integrate those too to have full confidence Pulp3 is >>>> ready for Katello. FWIW, those efforts are underway already. >>>> >>>> # Feedback >>>> Please send it any way you feel comfortable. If you feel we're not >>>> doing something right please tell us! >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> Brian >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>> >>
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
