Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Should we have freeze period on release process? #667

Closed
magicmatatjahu opened this issue Dec 7, 2021 · 11 comments
Closed

Should we have freeze period on release process? #667

magicmatatjahu opened this issue Dec 7, 2021 · 11 comments
Labels
❔ Question A question about the spec or processes stale

Comments

@magicmatatjahu
Copy link
Member

In the Which tools wants to stay up to date with the spec release? discussion, I suggested that we should have a "freeze period" in the release process to allow us to update tooling on time. Comment below:

#662 (comment)

One of the problems that I also see in updating tools is the situation that occurred in the previous release. On the same day as the tools were updated we also merged changes in spec/json-schemas/parser on the release branch - this caused situations when e.g. people needed to know about the changes but did not have a "pre-release", which could be tested in tools. We needed some kind of freeze period in which we have the spec/json-schemas/parser merged (of course on the pre-release branch) and people can use them in the tools, e.g. 1-2 weeks. We are waiting for the tools update and then we do a full spec and tools release. What do you think?

So it's a question: is a valid in our case to have a freeze period? If yes, how long? For minor changes 1-2 weeks, for major 1-2 months, or ever more? What do you think?

cc @derberg @fmvilas @jonaslagoni @smoya

@jonaslagoni
Copy link
Member

Because we have such a huge focus on tooling, I think it makes sense.

I suggest we keep the freeze period consistent as everyone knows exactly what to expect. Because we need to give tooling developers adequate time to adapt, I feel like 1 month is the way to go.

@github-actions
Copy link

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity 😴

It will be closed in 120 days if no further activity occurs. To unstale this issue, add a comment with a detailed explanation.

There can be many reasons why some specific issue has no activity. The most probable cause is lack of time, not lack of interest. AsyncAPI Initiative is a Linux Foundation project not owned by a single for-profit company. It is a community-driven initiative ruled under open governance model.

Let us figure out together how to push this issue forward. Connect with us through one of many communication channels we established here.

Thank you for your patience ❤️

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale label Apr 16, 2022
@derberg
Copy link
Member

derberg commented Apr 20, 2022

How is it going with the freeze period? 😆

@derberg derberg removed the stale label Apr 20, 2022
@github-actions
Copy link

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity 😴

It will be closed in 120 days if no further activity occurs. To unstale this issue, add a comment with a detailed explanation.

There can be many reasons why some specific issue has no activity. The most probable cause is lack of time, not lack of interest. AsyncAPI Initiative is a Linux Foundation project not owned by a single for-profit company. It is a community-driven initiative ruled under open governance model.

Let us figure out together how to push this issue forward. Connect with us through one of many communication channels we established here.

Thank you for your patience ❤️

@github-actions github-actions bot added stale and removed stale labels Aug 19, 2022
@magicmatatjahu
Copy link
Member Author

@derberg We just tested it on the example of this issue 🤣 Let others comment, I think that for 3.0.0 we should have some month two of such period.

cc @derberg @fmvilas @jonaslagoni @smoya @dalelane

@jonaslagoni
Copy link
Member

For 3.0.0 I would suggest we try with a 1-month buffer, meaning if we want to release it in Januar, we stop adding new changes to the spec in December 🙂 That way it's a start, and we can evaluate in retrospect how it went.

Adding it as a suggestion for tomorrow's 3.0.0 meeting: asyncapi/community#453

@fmvilas
Copy link
Member

fmvilas commented Sep 13, 2022

I would actually suggest we give it 3 months. It's going to be a huge change 😅

@jonaslagoni
Copy link
Member

jonaslagoni commented Sep 13, 2022

I would actually suggest we give it 3 months. It's going to be a huge change 😅

Well, yes that is true, but remember parser should already be up to date before the freeze period, and those who worked on the spec that also works on tooling, have their hands free as no further changes are happening from that front. So I actually don't think it's that bad 😄

But, I don't mind it being 3 months, it gives more time to nail the implementation of course it gives those who don't work full time on it time to adjust.

@smoya
Copy link
Member

smoya commented Sep 14, 2022

I would actually suggest we give it 3 months. It's going to be a huge change 😅

+1.

EDIT: I also +1 what @dalelane says below:

For v3, and major versions in general, I agree - a few months is sensible.
For minor versions, it feels less urgent to me though

@dalelane
Copy link
Collaborator

For v3, and major versions in general, I agree - a few months is sensible.
For minor versions, it feels less urgent to me though

@github-actions
Copy link

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity 😴

It will be closed in 120 days if no further activity occurs. To unstale this issue, add a comment with a detailed explanation.

There can be many reasons why some specific issue has no activity. The most probable cause is lack of time, not lack of interest. AsyncAPI Initiative is a Linux Foundation project not owned by a single for-profit company. It is a community-driven initiative ruled under open governance model.

Let us figure out together how to push this issue forward. Connect with us through one of many communication channels we established here.

Thank you for your patience ❤️

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale label Jan 14, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale May 14, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
❔ Question A question about the spec or processes stale
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants