Hi - One change that needs to be made is regarding the KEYS file.
We should drop the use of https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/KEYS instead we should carefully update https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/pulsar/KEYS The two KEYS files are currently out of sync. The release file had to be hand reconstructed at the beginning of the year and I’ve had to deal with new Release Manager KEYS that were not copied during the Release Process. (Recently Apache Infra has been scanning release and is informing PMCs when their releases are broken.) The RM should ask a PMC member to help them add their KEY. I’m willing to do it and I’m certain other PMC members would do the same. The VOTE threads can then always refer to a proper KEYS file that will always be correct. RMs should also make sure that their KEY does not expire while the release is active which could be for several years. If your KEY is revoked at some point then please let the PMC know. I like moving the Release Docs to the codebase, but we do need to assure that the PMC fully reviews changes. The reviews that count before squash and merge must be from PMC members. The reason is that the Pulsar PMC is responsible for assuring that Pulsar releases comply with Apache Release Policies. Do not make the release docs part of versioned docs. There should be only the current policy. If other products of the Pulsar project require different release docs it is fine to have separate docs. All The Best, Dave > On Aug 12, 2022, at 7:41 AM, tison <wander4...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Penghui & Yunze, > > I ever wrote developer guides for TiDB[1] and Apache Kvrocks (Incubating), > including the release guide for the latter[2]. > > Just for your information, I'm preparing the proposal to bring a developer > guide page (series docs). Perhaps start in the next month. > > Although, it cannot help the current status, and I don't want to discuss > details on this topic here. Again, just for your information :) > > Best, > tison. > > [1] https://pingcap.github.io/tidb-dev-guide/ > [2] https://kvrocks.apache.org/community/how-to-release > > > Yunze Xu <y...@streamnative.io.invalid> 于2022年8月12日周五 21:57写道： > >> Yeah, I agree. It’s better to move the release process to the codebase. >> >> Regarding the automatic validation program, we can have that for some >> common verifications like the GPG verification, which only requires a >> simple >> command if you have downloaded the binary. >> >> Thanks, >> Yunze >> >> >> >> >>> 2022年8月12日 18:12，PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> 写道： >>> >>> Thanks for raising this question. >>> >>> Maybe we'd better move the release process doc and validation doc >>> to the codebase, not the wiki pages. >>> >>> - Only committers can update the wiki pages >>> - The changes without review >>> >>> After moving to the pulsar codebase >>> >>> - Everyone can contribute to the validation doc >>> - The release process doc update can get reviewers to review >>> >>> I think there are multiple issues that need to be resolved for the >> release >>> process >>> >>> - Have the Python client(Linux, osx) at the RC stage, I think currently >> we >>> only have the C++ client for RC, but push to pypi after the RC gets >> passed >>> - Add validation process for the Python and C++ client >>> - Add the Go function and Python function validation process >>> - Add a script for building images for RC >>> - Add images validation process >>> >>> And another point is can we have an automatic validation program to >> reduce >>> the burden on validators? >>> I'm not sure if it is acceptable. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Penghui >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 4:50 PM Haiting Jiang <jianghait...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> the 7th step is "Write release notes", should we execute this >>>>> step later? >>>> >>>> From what I see, the release note can be postponed after the voting >>>> process. >>>> And it's not part of the voting content and does not affect whether we >>>> should cut a new release candidate. >>>> >>>>> In addition, I found the previous candidate [2] includes the docker >>>>> images, which is not included in the template of the 8th step "Run the >>>>> vote". It seems to be the 10th step "Publish Docker Images". >>>> >>>> Confused +1, If we do add docker image as part of release vote, we >> should >>>> also add validation method in [1] >>>> >>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/Release-Candidate-Validation >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Haiting >>>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 9:49 PM Yunze Xu <y...@streamnative.io.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> Recently I'm working on the release of 2.8.4 and it's near the vote of >>>>> the 1st candidate but I have some questions. >>>>> >>>>> From the tutorial [1] we can see, the 8th step is "Run the vote". >>>>> However, the 7th step is "Write release notes", should we execute this >>>>> step later? I see the 16th step is also "Write release notes" but the >>>>> 16th step at the beginning of "Release workflow" section is "Update >>>>> the site". >>>>> >>>>> In addition, I found the previous candidate [2] includes the docker >>>>> images, which is not included in the template of the 8th step "Run the >>>>> vote". It seems to be the 10th step "Publish Docker Images". >>>>> >>>>> It seems that the documents are not maintained well, which really >>>>> makes me confused. Therefore, before voting for the 1st candidate, I >>>>> want to get some clarifications from the mail list. >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/Release-process >>>>> [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/q0g5ko617rb77b1wqpxy94ks5mq48d88 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Yunze >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >>
