-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 161
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
[RFC 0106] Nix release schedule #106
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@ | ||
--- | ||
feature: Nix release schedule | ||
start-date: 2021-09-23 | ||
author: Eelco Dolstra | ||
co-authors: (find a buddy later to help out with the RFC) | ||
shepherd-team: @Ericson2314, @regnat, @Ma27, @tomberek | ||
shepherd-leader: @tomberek | ||
related-issues: N/A | ||
--- | ||
|
||
# Summary | ||
[summary]: #summary | ||
|
||
Do a new Nix release every 6 weeks. | ||
|
||
# Motivation | ||
[motivation]: #motivation | ||
|
||
The last major Nix release, 2.3, came out in September 2019. Since | ||
then, there has been a huge amount of work on the Nix master branch, | ||
including major improvements to the new command line interface and new | ||
experimental features such as flakes, the content-addressable Nix | ||
store, and recursive Nix. This forces many users to use unstable Nix | ||
releases, which is undesirable. | ||
|
||
In the future, we should avoid having such long gaps between releases, | ||
since it’s bad for both contributors and users that there is an | ||
unbounded amount of time before a new feature shows up in a stable | ||
release. The thing that has historically caused long gaps between Nix | ||
releases is new experimental features landing in master that we | ||
weren’t quite sure about, and doing a new release meant having to | ||
support these features indefinitely. However, Nix 2.4 introduces an | ||
experimental-features setting that enables us to add such features in | ||
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. | ||
|
||
# Detailed design | ||
[design]: #detailed-design | ||
|
||
* We do a new Nix release (named 2.5.0, 2.6.0, 3.0.0, ...) every 6 | ||
weeks. The release process is already almost entirely automated so | ||
this is pretty easy. | ||
|
||
* For each major release, we create a maintenance branch (named | ||
e.g. `2.5-maintenance`) and corresponding Hydra jobset. Patch | ||
releases (e.g. 2.5.1) are made as needed. | ||
|
||
* The master branch should be kept in a releasable state at all | ||
times. This means that the jobset | ||
https://hydra.nixos.org/jobset/nix/master should be completely | ||
green. | ||
|
||
* PRs should include release notes, if applicable. (Currently trawling | ||
through the history to dig up interesting stuff for the release | ||
notes is the most work in making a new release.) The PR template | ||
will be updated to reflect this. | ||
|
||
# Drawbacks | ||
[drawbacks]: #drawbacks | ||
|
||
Infrequent releases give somewhat more stability to users. Users of Nix-stable | ||
have been blissfully isolated from all the code churn on master for | ||
the last two years. | ||
|
||
# Alternatives | ||
[alternatives]: #alternatives | ||
|
||
Stick to the current release-when-it's-ready non-schedule. | ||
|
||
# Previous work | ||
|
||
[RFC 0009](https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/9) proposed a rapid | ||
release policy where releases can be done at any time (e.g. on | ||
request) rather than on a fixed schedule. It wasn't feasible at the | ||
time because we didn't have a notion of experimental features, so we | ||
had to give such features some time to stabilize before doing a new | ||
release. | ||
|
||
# Future work | ||
[future]: #future-work | ||
|
||
N/A |
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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)