Skip to content

Write some docs about the release process#2366

Closed
bkchr wants to merge 2 commits intomasterfrom
bkchr-clarify-release-process
Closed

Write some docs about the release process#2366
bkchr wants to merge 2 commits intomasterfrom
bkchr-clarify-release-process

Conversation

@bkchr
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@bkchr bkchr commented Nov 16, 2023

This is only a first step and not the end. Later it is probably required that we come up with a more detailed document. However, this should be a good start for an overview.

The text is explaining the "goal" and not what we currently have. The things about the required CI tooling changes and some other small improvements are tracked here: #2365

This is only a first step and not the end. Later it is probably required
that we come up with a more detailed document. However, this should be a
good start for an overview.
@bkchr bkchr added the R0-no-crate-publish-required The change does not require any crates to be re-published. label Nov 16, 2023
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@mrcnski mrcnski left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Mostly very clear!

Declaring formal releases remains the prerogative of the project maintainer(s).
## Release Process

We are aiming for a **two week** release process of the `polkadot-sdk` repository. The output of a release
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is it worth mentioning/explaining the merge window? I.e. just because a PR got merged before a release, doesn't mean it made it into the release.

Comment on lines +187 to +192
So, the general approach is that developers are required to bump the versions in
all crates that they are changing. If there is a `major` (or `minor` on `<1.0.0`)
crate version bump, it is important to also bump any crate that depends on this
bumped version crate and re-export it. However, if the re-export is done in a
`__private` module (that makes clear that it is internal api) the `major`/`minor`
version bump doesn't ripple and only requires a `minor`/`patch` bump.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm confused by this paragraph. Can you please explain the re-exporting? What is the __private module (is this just some example name?) Why do we need to bump a crate version if only the internal API changed, is it just because our tooling requires it?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is a public re-export for macros. This is a known pattern to make people on the outside aware that they should not use this module. However, from a pure SemVer perspective, this would be a breaking change.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh I've never seen that pattern. I grepped and the __private looks like it's only used in substrate. But there is nothing substrate-specific about this doc or this "Crates" section, so it should be clarified. Also, I still don't understand this:

the major/minor version bump doesn't ripple and only requires a minor/patch bump.

But, this paragraph should just be rewritten, and ideally should explain the "why". For sure it is very hard to understand, especially for new contributors.

Comment on lines +165 to +168
For the test networks we only increment the `spec_version`. The spec version is also following
the node version. So, `10020` is for example the node release `1.2.0`. This versioning has no
further meaning and is only done to map from an on chain `spec_version` easily to the
release in this repository.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@joepetrowski joepetrowski Nov 16, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We have already not followed this. Rococo and Westend Relays are on 103000 (with 1.3.0 release) and the system paras are on 1_003_000 (using the Fellowship "style"). Switching to this would mean decreasing the version. Can we just use the Fellowship style for consistency, M_mmm_ppp?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't care. We can do this.

Co-authored-by: joe petrowski <25483142+joepetrowski@users.noreply.github.com>
[`cargo-semver-checks`](https://github.com/obi1kenobi/cargo-semver-checks). While
the tool isn't perfect, it should help to remind the developer of checking the SemVer
compatibility of its changes. In general there is not any guarantee to downstream
that there isn't a breaking in between and thus a `major` (or `minor` on `<1.0.0`)
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
that there isn't a breaking in between and thus a `major` (or `minor` on `<1.0.0`)
that there isn't a breaking change in between and thus a `major` (or `minor` on `<1.0.0`)

@bkchr
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

bkchr commented Nov 22, 2023

Closing for now. Will come back :P

@bkchr bkchr closed this Nov 22, 2023
@bkchr bkchr mentioned this pull request Nov 24, 2023
@bkchr bkchr deleted the bkchr-clarify-release-process branch December 17, 2024 21:46
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

R0-no-crate-publish-required The change does not require any crates to be re-published.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants