Susan Bowen (HPE), Jonas Arndt (HPE), Louis (LF), Alex Vul (Intel), Piotr Zedlewski (Inte), Bob Monkman (Intel),
- Continue discussions on our Release Management Process
- Potential move under an umbrella organization
- Align on a better time slot for the TSC Proposal Meeting
- Continue discussion on Topic Proposal(s) for LFN Virtual Dev & Testing Forum, Feb 1-4, 2021
Release Management discussion
- Returned to the question of whether to have maintenance releases.
- Decisions relating to the frequency of releases and whether to have major and maintenance or a different strategy:
- How far back do we support?
- How to name/number the releases.
- Branching strategy.
- Snapshot releases.
- Supporting previous versions
- Proposal: Don’t create maintenance releases and backport them.
- For other projects that do maintenance releases, they are tied to one specific major release.
- How to name/number the releases
- Could use numbers, but make them 1.0 for a major release, 1.01 for small change, then the next big release becomes 2.0. (new feature or improvement or evolution)
- Could use code names for releases, such as “city” Then if there is a maintenance release it is described as “maintenance release for (name of) city release.”
- Could use the last two digits of the year and two digits for the month, so a release in January of 2021 would be called “21.01” A point release a month later would be called “21.01.1”
- Piotr Zedlewski also described
- the SPDK project strategy, which specifies LTS (Long Term Support) releases. Its numbering is “2.1.0 LTS release”. Once a year with a maintenance release. Links:
From Piotr Zedlewski (Intel) to Everyone: 09:22 AM
Storage Performance Development Kit
- Branching Strategy
- The Git branching model: https://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/, Includes Main branch, Dev Branch, Feature Branches. (see chart)
- Different branches, different streams by function (telemetry, eventing as examples). When one of the new branches becomes stable, it goes into the release train.
- The SPDK project has only the main and release branches. Concern there is developing the new and experimental and doing them directly in the release branch.
- Experimental work (new features/functions) should never break the existing release (main branch).
- Desire for ODIM to get to a loosely coupled Get to open stack model of self-certification (Alex) need to get to that. Rigorous (API tests passed – this will fall onto the dev team).
- Common core with supporting services ODIM relies on. Loosely coupled and pluggable is good – better off the project will be. Rafal and Alex want to talk about how to make it modular and loosely coupled for future expansion – they would have people dedicated to doing that work.
- You should be able to clone from main branch with confidence
- Snapshot releases
- When a new feature/function branch becomes stable, it goes into the release train.
- There is ongoing CI CD and no maintenance releases. Releases that are a snapshot.
9:40 am TOPIC: TSC PROPOSAL MEETING scheduling
- Tuesdays from Pacific 6 am to 7 am
- 21st and 28th
- Meet first week of 2021 (release Jan 31st!)
9:50 TOPIC: Move under umbrella
- CNCF - Sandbox project? (Would ODIM ever get out of that?)
- Martin, when discussion with CNCF it may never become a qualified project. They didn’t have resources to review sandbox projects and make ODIM a regular (qualified) project.
- Alex, we need to do the homework. If CNCF develops an alternative bare-metal toolkit.
- Ran out of time
9:58 LFN and LFE? (Louis said) wherever home for ODIM
- Louis says good to get exposure in LFN Virtual Dev & Testing Forum, Feb 1-4, 2021.
- Is the request to have an ODIM session?