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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
sig-release: Add release cadence KEP #2567
sig-release: Add release cadence KEP #2567
Changes from 27 commits
cfe59ef
31da696
5f121c9
4c0f38c
ef250f7
be9f769
4de2c8c
52a8280
e02b8dd
9ef45b6
233c2cc
b668922
f625168
15a626a
e2d5d96
92c1c2d
854ffb5
0502c94
03fe45e
b527823
d4f878a
995ab88
90bc266
3fc92e1
0183839
9d65c63
7e1b190
3a1e6c4
43b1908
1d9d76f
0def15c
d696d32
41d22d3
2887453
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Where was the starting release decided? I don't see that in the linked GitHub discussion.
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.
Based on the discussions from Leads/TL meeting, sig-release leads assumed this date and the KEP is written to reflect this, with later commits adding more language around this.
The "decision" would be the KEP merging. At this point, it seems like we need a more formal process for deciding this date/identifying who can be the final source of approval. Is this something steering can assist with?
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.
@jeremyrickard wearing my steering hat, sig-arch, sig-release, sig-testing chairs should sign off, please add them as approvers.
( cc @kubernetes/steering-committee in case any other steering folks have other suggestions )
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.
Thanks @dims, I will update the approvers section tomorrow.
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.
who will be surveyed? and specifically when? If we wait until the 3rd release is finished to do a survey and people aren't happy, that doesn't leave a lot of time to properly announce that the next cycle may be changed and we end up back in a 2 week discussion/notification predicament again.
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'm torn on the survey now, because of the points you have raised (and some others).
Does the community even have an effective way to conduct such a survey that would be fully inclusive and not leave out end users and contributors who are not plugged in?
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.
Not that I know of, but could definitely survey all SIGs/SIG leads and send survey to k-dev at a min?
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.
On top of those issues - many end-users won't be caught up, so the overall quality-of-life impact may not yet be known.
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 think we can drop the survey stuff from this KEP, it is for setting up a
Schedule Policy
so let's leave it at that pleaseThere 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.
@jeremyrickard Do we want to pick one way or another and resolve this discussion please?
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 think that counting Kubecons as only one work of working time spent is a bit low, because of the extent to which very active contribtors to the project are probably very active Kubecon participants.
There's the week before of "get everything ready for the big show", and the week after of "integrate everything you learned while you were there into your todo list", where people probably aren't as productive as they normally would be.
That's really important for the timing calculations below.
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.
Indeed, the policy states:
I'll add language to state that the release team will not meet during that blocked week and clarify the other two weeks. In the past we didn't break, and I think this change has been beneficial but it consumes time.
Thanks @youngnick I'll fold this in.
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.
In regards to comments from @jberkus and @liggitt (#2567 (comment)), I think that this should be defined more precisely. I think that choosing something like December 10th (as proposed by @liggitt) makes sense.
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.
As noted above I think the timing of the feedback survey needs to be fleshed out a bit. I worry about it happening between releases (does that mean it's going to affect the next one? or the one after for a notice period?).
Also if the new cadence begins with 1.22, that would mean we'd potentially be changing cadence back in mid 2022? Feels like in that case taking stock towards the end of 1.23 (EOY release) would make more sense to move forward in 2023 with a solid plan for the entire year?