[RFC 0106] Nix release schedule #106

edolstra · 2021-09-23T10:47:49Z

This RFC proposes doing new Nix releases every six weeks, as previously proposed on Discourse.

rfcs/0106-nix-release-schedule.md

tomberek · 2021-09-25T21:03:07Z

Nixpkgs/NixOS releases have mechanisms that encourage stability as well as ensuring it gets done. Concepts like release managers, ZHF, release channels (along with all the corresponding testing), backports policy, wiki about release process, and so forth help drive progress. I don’t have a solid idea formulated yet, but I think some analogous concept would be good to include in this RFC.

abathur · 2021-09-28T03:48:01Z

I have no strong opinions on semver vs. calver. Thoughtful semver is useful, but not so great that it'd be worth regular debates over whether a release qualifies as an x/y/z bump instead of something a script generates.

I guess I'd prefer semver if it's a decision being made within 24h of release by a small, decisive group with good heuristics/razors. If it takes longer than that, it's probably better for everyone to just automate it.

This is a little far afield, but I've daydreamed about "test-driven versioning." I can't really extoll its virtues--it's just something I vaguely intend to give a try someday--but it struck me while writing this that some of Nix's ~contracts (like store, CLI, and daemon compatibility) might make interesting candidates for test-enforced version promises.

rfcs/0106-nix-release-schedule.md

L-as · 2021-10-01T09:14:06Z

rfcs/0106-nix-release-schedule.md

+[unresolved]: #unresolved-questions
+
+* Should we still do maintenance releases (like 2.3.x)? Should there
+  be a long-term stability release (like 2.3 is now, de facto)?


I don't see the point of this. Ideally, the only backward-compatible changes that happen in Nix are in the interface, not the language and building mechanisms. Because of this, supporting a new Nix release in a project will likely never require large changes.

Dunno for the long-term releases, but I think we’ll have to do maintenance releases anyways, if only because we might have to do some bug fixes on the latest release before the end of the 6w cycle

L-as · 2021-10-01T09:18:13Z

rfcs/0106-nix-release-schedule.md

+a way that they can be changed or removed, while still getting
+feedback from adventurous users. So long as experimental features
+don’t cause breakage in stable features, it’s fine to merge them into
+master and include them in a new release.


While this is true, a lot of smaller changes don't get an experimental feature, e.g. NixOS/nix#4922. Perhaps there should be a generic experimental feature for enabling unstable minor changes such as this, so that we don't have to add an experimental feature for each?

I don’t think having a arbitrary (reasonable) number of experimental features is too much of an issue. People shouldn’t be expected to just blindly buy into them, and having each feature guarded by an experimental flag gives more flexibility to rework/abandon them.

(Anyways, I think the usage of experimental features should be refined/standardized, but that’s out of scope for this RFC)

nixos-discourse · 2021-10-07T19:41:33Z

This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/nix-release-schedule-and-roadmap/14204/18

Ericson2314 · 2021-10-14T14:42:58Z

I think the most critical thing is not necessarily release branches, but upgrading. E.g. if Nixpkgs goes CA-drvs default, making sure the previous n stable Nixpkgs releases have a new enough Nix.

lheckemann · 2021-10-26T19:50:59Z

I'd like to nominate:

@Ericson2314 and @regnat, major contributors to nix in the past year
@mweinelt, who does a lot of work keeping nixpkgs stable branches stable
@Ma27, who does a lot of work keeping nixpkgs stable branches stable and keeps a close eye on regressions in nixUnstable

as shepherds.

Ericson2314 · 2021-10-26T23:14:01Z

Sure!

Ma27 · 2021-10-28T19:40:58Z

I'm certainly interested, but not sure if I have the capacity in the next time for another duty. I should have an answer to this by the beginning of next week, then I can accept or decline the nomination, hope that's OK :)

thufschmitt · 2021-10-28T19:49:14Z

Yes, I can definitely shepherd that one 👍

mweinelt · 2021-10-28T19:56:28Z

Sorry, not my cup of tea.

nixos-discourse · 2021-11-02T00:13:15Z

This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/installer-test-suite-small-project-s-high-leverage-help-wanted/13662/5

Ma27 · 2021-11-03T19:56:48Z

So, I'd be up for it if everyone else involved is OK with that :)

tomberek · 2021-11-04T02:39:08Z

I can assist with this. I've been focusing on Nix itself for a bit. I'll self-nominate.

I've got an updated flake fork of the nix-install-matrix lying around that can track and test various scenarios - throw it up on a "Nix installer status page"?

spacekookie · 2021-11-17T14:12:34Z

Please update the RFC with the following shepherds: @Ericson2314, @regnat, @Ma27, @tomberek (leader). Thank you!

tomberek · 2021-11-19T02:16:41Z

Plan of Action

created a room at #nix-rfc-106:matrix.org for any discussion

My guess is that the schedule and intent is not controversial. Focus on establishing some policy and guidance the community can depend on.

Determine possible risks
Establish a few possible and acceptable controls.
Update RFC, with any policy-only controls
FCP
Merge
Implement technical controls in parallel with 3-5
Release another Nix version (apx: 2021 Dec 13)

Ericson2314 · 2021-11-24T02:18:23Z

So based on struggles I am having updating a client from 2.3 to 2.4, one thing I would like to see more of is testing of mixed clients/daemons/sshes as part of release-readiness. We've made NixOS/nix#5572 to test the new client with the old daemon, but I would also like to test the old client with the new daemon, and it is a but unclear what the best way to do that is.

ck3d · 2021-11-24T07:00:33Z

Regarding updating, I updated the daemon to 2.4pre and my services ran 2.3. After a few day I was confronted with NixOS/nix#5299 . I spend hours to fix the broken entries in the nix store.

edolstra · 2021-11-25T14:38:22Z

On 1: That's out of scope for this RFC IMHO. We should probably have another RFC to decide on an experimental features policy.

On 2: Releasable state means that https://hydra.nixos.org/jobset/nix/master must be green. This is a superset of nix flake check.

On 3: That's me currently since I have the GPG signing key.

On 4: We should update the PR template to ask for release notes / documentation updates, if appropriate.

nixos-discourse · 2021-11-26T02:35:58Z

This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/nix-2-4-and-what-s-next/16257/1

thufschmitt · 2021-11-30T17:59:29Z

rfcs/0106-nix-release-schedule.md

+a way that they can be changed or removed, while still getting
+feedback from adventurous users. So long as experimental features
+don’t cause breakage in stable features, it’s fine to merge them into
+master and include them in a new release.


I don’t think having a arbitrary (reasonable) number of experimental features is too much of an issue. People shouldn’t be expected to just blindly buy into them, and having each feature guarded by an experimental flag gives more flexibility to rework/abandon them.

(Anyways, I think the usage of experimental features should be refined/standardized, but that’s out of scope for this RFC)

rfcs/0106-nix-release-schedule.md

thufschmitt · 2021-11-30T18:29:52Z

rfcs/0106-nix-release-schedule.md

+[unresolved]: #unresolved-questions
+
+* Should we still do maintenance releases (like 2.3.x)? Should there
+  be a long-term stability release (like 2.3 is now, de facto)?


Dunno for the long-term releases, but I think we’ll have to do maintenance releases anyways, if only because we might have to do some bug fixes on the latest release before the end of the 6w cycle

Co-authored-by: Théophane Hufschmitt <regnat@users.noreply.github.com>

tomberek · 2021-12-09T19:20:08Z

Update Plan of Action

~~Determine possible risks~~ complete
~~Establish a few possible and acceptable controls.~~ adding clarification
Update RFC, with any policy-only controls
a) update RFC to define "releasable state"
b) updating issue template to nudge toward a more comprehensive test suite
FCP
Merge
~~Implement technical controls in parallel with 3-5~~: out-of-scope and considered to be future work
Release another Nix version (apx: 2021 Dec 13)

@NixOS/rfc-steering-committee: recommend moving this to FCP after RFC edits mentioned above. Shepherd team has general consensus and is recommending adoption.

edolstra · 2021-12-15T13:55:16Z

@tomberek I've updated the RFC to define "releasable state" and mention the issue template.

Mic92 · 2021-12-15T14:36:27Z

@tomberek do you think this RFC is now ready for FCP since the last commit?

tomberek · 2021-12-15T16:08:31Z

@tomberek do you think this RFC is now ready for FCP since the last commit?

Yes.

terlar · 2021-12-15T20:31:29Z

When it comes to back-porting fixes, how many versions back would receive backports with this new more frequent releases? Will the recommended way be to move forward to next version instead?

Also should the nix versions automatically be updated in nixpkgs as well? I notice now we do have a release of Nix 2.5.0. But nixpkgs for example have yet to be updated with this new release.

nixos-discourse · 2022-01-12T14:48:03Z

This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/rfc-106-fcp-nix-release-schedule/17096/1

edolstra · 2022-01-12T14:48:53Z

Sorry, we forgot to announce the RFC on Discourse. I've done that now.

terlar · 2022-01-12T15:03:14Z

What about my previous questions, are those things that should be part of the RFC?

E.g.

What is the back-porting policy?
Should the release process be connected in any way to nixpkgs?

edolstra · 2022-01-26T14:19:08Z

We currently don't have a formal back-porting policy, so this RFC doesn't really change anything in that respect.

On the Nixpkgs release process, we probably want to maintain (i.e. back-port to) the default version used in the latest NixOS release.

edolstra · 2022-01-26T14:22:49Z

The RFC has been merged. Thanks everybody!

nixos-discourse · 2023-01-03T19:23:34Z

This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/nix-2022-what-was-great/24410/5

* Nix release schedule * Fix link * Update rfcs/0106-nix-release-schedule.md Co-authored-by: Théophane Hufschmitt <regnat@users.noreply.github.com> * Add shepherds * Update to reflect latest meeting Co-authored-by: Théophane Hufschmitt <regnat@users.noreply.github.com>

Nix release schedule

8a85163

edolstra added the status: new label Sep 23, 2021

Mic92 added status: open for nominations Open for shepherding team nominations and removed status: new labels Sep 23, 2021

ryantm reviewed Sep 23, 2021

View reviewed changes

rfcs/0106-nix-release-schedule.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Fix link

00ef14f

edolstra changed the title ~~Nix release schedule~~ [RFC 0106] Nix release schedule Sep 23, 2021

ryantm approved these changes Sep 23, 2021

View reviewed changes

L-as reviewed Oct 1, 2021

View reviewed changes

This was referenced Oct 7, 2021

Meeting 2021-09-23 NixOS/rfc-steering-committee#73

Closed

Meeting 2021-10-07 NixOS/rfc-steering-committee#75

Closed

Mic92 mentioned this pull request Nov 3, 2021

Meeting 2021-11-03 NixOS/rfc-steering-committee#76

Closed

25 tasks

spacekookie added status: in discussion and removed status: open for nominations Open for shepherding team nominations labels Nov 17, 2021

spacekookie mentioned this pull request Nov 17, 2021

Meeting 2021-11-17 NixOS/rfc-steering-committee#77

Closed

25 tasks

thufschmitt approved these changes Nov 30, 2021

View reviewed changes

Update rfcs/0106-nix-release-schedule.md

c8e84c2

Co-authored-by: Théophane Hufschmitt <regnat@users.noreply.github.com>

lheckemann mentioned this pull request Dec 1, 2021

Meeting 2021-12-01 NixOS/rfc-steering-committee#78

Closed

26 tasks

Add shepherds

5821e01

Update to reflect latest meeting

6c51f5d

kloenk mentioned this pull request Dec 15, 2021

Meeting 2021-12-15 NixOS/rfc-steering-committee#79

Closed

25 tasks

edolstra mentioned this pull request Jan 12, 2022

Meeting 2022-01-12 NixOS/rfc-steering-committee#80

Closed

25 tasks

edolstra added status: FCP in Final Comment Period and removed status: in discussion labels Jan 12, 2022

spacekookie merged commit b5181c9 into NixOS:master Jan 26, 2022

spacekookie mentioned this pull request Jan 26, 2022

Meeting 2022-01-26 NixOS/rfc-steering-committee#81

Closed

21 tasks

edolstra deleted the nix-release-schedule branch January 26, 2022 14:22

infinisil added status: accepted and removed status: FCP in Final Comment Period labels Aug 23, 2023

cole-h mentioned this pull request Mar 22, 2024

Update the release cycle NixOS/nix#10288

Merged

[RFC 0106] Nix release schedule #106

[RFC 0106] Nix release schedule #106

Conversation

edolstra commented Sep 23, 2021 • edited Loading

tomberek commented Sep 25, 2021

abathur commented Sep 28, 2021 • edited Loading

L-as Oct 1, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

thufschmitt Nov 30, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

L-as Oct 1, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

thufschmitt Nov 30, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

nixos-discourse commented Oct 7, 2021

Ericson2314 commented Oct 14, 2021 • edited Loading

lheckemann commented Oct 26, 2021

Ericson2314 commented Oct 26, 2021

Ma27 commented Oct 28, 2021

thufschmitt commented Oct 28, 2021

mweinelt commented Oct 28, 2021

nixos-discourse commented Nov 2, 2021

Ma27 commented Nov 3, 2021

tomberek commented Nov 4, 2021

spacekookie commented Nov 17, 2021

tomberek commented Nov 19, 2021 • edited Loading

Plan of Action

Ericson2314 commented Nov 24, 2021

ck3d commented Nov 24, 2021

edolstra commented Nov 25, 2021

nixos-discourse commented Nov 26, 2021

thufschmitt Nov 30, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

thufschmitt Nov 30, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tomberek commented Dec 9, 2021

Update Plan of Action

edolstra commented Dec 15, 2021

Mic92 commented Dec 15, 2021

tomberek commented Dec 15, 2021

terlar commented Dec 15, 2021

nixos-discourse commented Jan 12, 2022

edolstra commented Jan 12, 2022

terlar commented Jan 12, 2022

edolstra commented Jan 26, 2022

edolstra commented Jan 26, 2022

nixos-discourse commented Jan 3, 2023

edolstra commented Sep 23, 2021 •

edited

Loading

abathur commented Sep 28, 2021 •

edited

Loading

Ericson2314 commented Oct 14, 2021 •

edited

Loading

tomberek commented Nov 19, 2021 •

edited

Loading