Release Process update #493
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
* create rc -> dev PR earlier * no need for rc issue (using PR instead)
|
Kegan and I worked on this together to better document and streamline the release process. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
MDS Pull Request
Thank you for your contribution!
For most Pull Requests, the target branch should be
dev. Please ensure you are targetingdevto avoid complications and help make the Review process as smooth as possible.Explain pull request
Simplification of the Release Candidate / Release process:
Instead of Release Candidate Issue, create the PR from release branch ->
devas part of Release Candidate process. This ensures review and changes are collected and visible in one place.Create new PR templates to help the process
Is this a breaking change
A breaking change would require consumers or implementors of the API to modify their code for it to continue to function (ex: renaming of a required field or the change in data type of an existing field). A non-breaking change would allow existing code to continue to function (ex: addition of an optional field or the creation of a new optional endpoint).
Impacted Spec
Which spec(s) will this pull request impact?
agencypolicyprovider