Skip to content

readme: update the release policy #186

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 18, 2020
Merged

Conversation

Totktonada
Copy link
Member

Until a recent discussion we have to update existing docker tag on
Docker Hub if something is fixed in a Dockerfile. Now we reconsidered
the process and decided to never change existing docker tags.

The reason is simple: there should be a way to freeze an image to get
rid of all possible negative impact due to a change.

The discussion is raised by @tsafin. Thank you, Timur!

Until a recent discussion we have to update existing docker tag on
Docker Hub if something is fixed in a Dockerfile. Now we reconsidered
the process and decided to never change existing docker tags.

The reason is simple: there should be a way to freeze an image to get
rid of all possible negative impact due to a change.

The discussion is raised by @tsafin. Thank you, Timur!
@Totktonada Totktonada requested review from tsafin and avtikhon August 7, 2020 20:41
Copy link

@tsafin tsafin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In general I'm ok with current description of policy - clear enough and should improve things a lot.


When the change is about the environment at all, all versions
need to be updated.
Fixed version tags (`x.y.z`) are frozen: we never update them.
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If we assume there will be hot updates with some suffixes (or numbers?) after the 3rd number, then we should extend definition of fixed tag

### Exceptional cases

As an exception we can deliver an important update for the existing tarantool
release within `x.y.z-r1`, `x.y.z-r2`, ... tags.
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Uh, I see you've mentioned them here. But still believe it worth to mention that updates are the same kind of fixed tags. But, well, I'm not insisting (because current description is clear enough)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree, it'll be more strict. I'll try to reword it as you proposed and will check how it looks.


TBD: How to notify users about the exceptional updates?
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Security update release should be announced using same channels as usual release (i.e. twitter, site, telegram, mailing lists).

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There are two possible cases:

  • Security update of tarantool. It is unclear whether we'll publish a new release in the case. But anyway, we either publish x.y.(z+1) or x.y.z-r1 docker tag. So what about announcements in those cases?
    1. If we'll publish the new x.y.(z+1) release: just notify users about it as usual.
    2. If we'll just fix the problem in x.y.z.n: notify users about the security problem and versions where it is resolved (tarantool x.y.z.n, the new docker tag x.y.z-r1).
  • Security update of a docker image (dependencies and so). We'll notify users about the docker image update.

Okay, now I have a clear picture in the mind. I'll update the PR with something like 'usual announcement channels' and will describe when an update requires a separate announcement and when it should be includes into some more general one.

@kyukhin kyukhin merged commit fe1eb1f into master Sep 18, 2020
@Totktonada Totktonada deleted the Totktonada/release-policy branch September 18, 2020 15:45
@Totktonada
Copy link
Member Author

I'll get back when the time will permit. Sorry that I didn't fix comments at time.

@avtikhon avtikhon restored the Totktonada/release-policy branch October 19, 2020 11:57
@avtikhon avtikhon deleted the Totktonada/release-policy branch October 19, 2020 12:10
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants