Bringing this forward. > On Oct 9, 2021, at 2:00 PM, Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dave, > Thanks for pointing this out. > I had sent a similar message a couple of weeks ago regarding the helm chart. > I am not sure that we can recover past releases. > But I believe that we can enforce a better process for the next releases of > any artifact/sub project of Pulsar. > > > > Il Ven 8 Ott 2021, 18:50 Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org> ha scritto: > >> This note will cover several points about Apache Release Distribution >> Policy. [1][2] All of the official Apache Pulsar release artifacts should >> be on the project’s download page. [3] >> What are the currently supported release artifacts? >> Where must all source release artifacts be on Apache Distribution Channels? >> How must download pages refer to current source release artifacts? >> Where must release VOTEs place the artifacts? >> Currently supported release artifacts. >> From the download page it looks like the current main release series is >> 2.8.1. From the urls from all of the older versions indicate that they are >> archives. This implies that the 2.8.x is the only current version with >> 2.9.x coming up. Is this what the community wants? >> > > AFAIK we have 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 as active release lines
We need Release Manager volunteers to roll dot releases for each of the current lines with required PRs applied. > > In my opinion we should send 2.6. To EOL, possibly after cutting a final > release. Judging from what’s in the current official location 2.6 is already EOL unless an RM steps forward. > > We should sent some EOL policy for every sub project that we release, > otherwise we should maintain everything (at least provide security fixes) Exactly. Whatever is not EOL needs maintenance releases. > > > >> Apache Distribution Channels >> Artifacts that are current must be uploaded via svn to >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/pulsar/ >> This location tells a different story about what is current: 2.7.2, 2.7.3, >> 2.8.0, 2.8.1, adaptors-2.8.0, pulsar-manager, and client-go (but the other >> clients are missing). It is fine to distribute to other channels like PIP, >> NPM, and Maven Central and point users to them. It is required that all >> source releases made by the PMC also be made on dist.apache.org. >> >> Download page links to release artifacts >> The ASF is moving away from its mirror network and is now using a CDN. >> Consequently preferred links have changed slightly. See the current >> requirements here. [4] There are a lot of adjustments to make. >> > > Any volunteers? I can look into the download page. > > >> Client packages >> While the separate page approach of describing the use and using >> appropriate channels for the client language is fine. A download of a >> separate source package for each client must be offered. >> > > Agreed I think that this should be done with the website redesign. > >> >> Location of packages for VOTEs >> These artifacts should be uploaded via svn to >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/. If that is done then it >> is easy to svn to the distribution channel ounce the VOTE is completed. [5] >> >> In synopsis there are three action items >> Determine the current development versions. Is 2.6 current or EOL? >> Bringing the client package release process into policy. The Node clients are in the proper channels. >> Updating the download page. Regards, Dave >> > > Thanks > Enrico > >> >> All The Best, >> Dave >> >> [1] https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-distribution >> [2] https://infra.apache.org/release-distribution.html >> [3] https://pulsar.apache.org/en/download/ >> [4] https://infra.apache.org/release-download-pages.html >> [5] https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#stage
