docs: Add release process notes #550
Conversation
[ci skip]
|
|
||
| - kormoc | ||
| - mattrobenolt | ||
| - savant |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you include me here. I believe I have acce to upload releases
| git push origin --tags | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| From this point forward, the makefile will generate a version starting with 4.1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we need some guidelines for versioning. How about x.x.x:
Major - Major features, possible backwards incompatible changes, etc.
Minor - New collectors/handlers
Patch - Minor bug fixes, collector tweaks
What do you think? Would the minor number bump up too often with this scheme?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That seems reasonable to me. Will modify the pull request.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As we start splitting up collectors into individual repos, how would that change these versions numbers?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We'd do a major release at that point.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. If we split up all collectors/handlers into their own repos, what is a minor point release of the core at that point? Or do we bring them all together to package them so it's purely just a code artifact that they're split up?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure how a splitup works, but in theory if we add new - non-breaking - functionality to the core, thats a minor release?
|
One thing I'm not sure on how to do this, but how should we generate docs locally? Running |
|
So the docs are managed by readthedocs right? But yeah I agree that running make should just work. I think we shouldn't rely on any config file for the building of anything. |
|
Right but we generate md files for each collector, which I think is done via @shortdudey123 Any thoughts here? I've noticed you commenting on issues in the past :) |
|
When i generate docs, i do it inside the vagrant box that got merged in #467 |
|
With this PR in general though, it looks like it describes the problem of commits since the last tag, but does not appear to solve that problem |
|
@shortdudey123 what would you change? My goal is to get us onto a two-week release cadence, with packaging available for all stable LTS distros. |
|
If the intention is to switch to semver, then i would say that needs to be explicitly called out. Looks like @jaingaurav added a comment about it already :) |
|
@jaingaurav @josegonzalez further thoughts? |
@jaingaurav Thoughts? I figure adding them here seems reasonable (I'd also like to get us on that regular release cadence).