Thanks for raising this Yunze. The docker image was added to the VOTE threads as a convenience for voters/testers. I don't believe we established a formal requirement for it, which might explain why it is not in the wiki. It should, however, be listed as an optional step if we want it to be one.
I agree with putting the release process in the apache/pulsar git repo. > we do need to assure that the PMC fully reviews changes Currently, any committer has access to modify the release docs, so this introduces a new requirement. One way to enforce who reviews a PR is with a CODEOWNERS file. We could create a GitHub group with PMC members and then require that any PR that touches the release process documentation file is approved by a PMC member. I am not sure that this is the "right" direction though. > Do not make the release docs part of versioned docs. I agree. Thanks, Michael On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 10:32 PM Yunze Xu <y...@streamnative.io.invalid> wrote: > > > The RM should ask a PMC member to help them add their KEY. > > Do not make the release docs part of versioned docs. > I agree. > > Thanks, > Yunze > > > > > > 2022年8月12日 23:10，Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org> 写道： > > > > 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > > >
