I agree, it's fine to do nothing until the state of the redmine issue is critical for Pulp 3 release process.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 3:47 PM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> wrote: > I think doing nothing for now makes sense. ON_QA doesn't seem to fit the > state of the issues and users can use the changelog for now. > > David > > > On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 12:38 PM Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> After some more IRC discussion here's another option. >> >> c) do nothing and if users want to know what is in the RC, look in the >> changelog. If users want to know what is in source, look in the CHANGES >> directory in master (which contains uncut changelog entries). The creation >> of the changelog deletes the CHANGES directory's files. >> >> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 10:46 AM Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> 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 >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
