Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Update the npm packages release process #14136

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Mar 6, 2019
Merged

Update the npm packages release process #14136

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
d74b326
Update the npm packages release process
youknowriad Feb 27, 2019
2b792bc
Link to the WordPress release cycle documentation.
nosolosw Feb 27, 2019
2d83385
Update docs/contributors/release.md
gziolo Mar 5, 2019
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
52 changes: 41 additions & 11 deletions docs/contributors/release.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -186,25 +186,55 @@ If you don't have access to [make.wordpress.org/core](https://make.wordpress.org

## Packages Releases and WordPress Core Updates

WordPress Core Updates are based on the `g-minor` branch. Releasing packages in order to update WordPress Core involves updating the `g-minor` branch (the workflow depends on whether it's a minor or major WordPress release) and run the package release process.
The Gutenberg repository mirrors the WordPress SVN repository in terms of branching for each SVN branch, a corresponding Gutenberg `wp/*` branch is created:
youknowriad marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

### Major WordPress Releases
- The `wp/trunk` branch contains all the packages that are published and used in the `trunk` branch of WordPress.
- A Gutenberg branch targetting a specific WordPress release and its minors is created (example `wp/5.2`) based on the `wp/trunk` Gutenberg branch when the WordPress `trunk` branch is marked as "feature-freezed". (This usually happens when the first `beta` of the next WordPress major version is released).
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Currently the https://github.com/wordpress/wordpress-develop repo uses x.y for branches, and x.y.z for tags, this includes the major releases tagged as x.y.z, for example 5.1.0

• https://github.com/WordPress/wordpress-develop/branches
• https://github.com/WordPress/wordpress-develop/tags

I suggest rather than wp/5.2 that wp/5.2.0 is used so that Gutenberg uses a consistent 3 digit nomenclature?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think Gutenberg should use the same thing wp/5.2 for the branch and x.y.z for tags. the wp/5.2 will serve for all 5.2.1, 5.2.2...

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

When WordPress releases a major release it is both branched and tagged, so a 5.0 branch is created, and a 5.1.0 tag is created:

• 5.0 branch https://github.com/WordPress/wordpress-develop/tree/5.1
• 5.1.0 tag https://github.com/WordPress/wordpress-develop/tree/5.1.0

All package.json files use the 3 digit nomenclature:

https://github.com/WordPress/wordpress-develop/blob/5.1.0/package.json#L3:

"version": "5.1.0",

Also, to note that the 5.0 branch has now had 4 minor releases so the 5.0 branch package.json file is now 5.0.4:
https://github.com/WordPress/wordpress-develop/blob/5.0/package.json#L3:

"version": "5.1.0",

If as you suggest, Gutenberg only use wp/5.2 for all 5.2.x releases I think that would work and be less work to maintain....

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Tags are automatically created by Lerna when we publish the packages. we can probably also tag wp-5.2.1 ourselves, but the issue is that at the time of the npm release, we don't know yet if it's the final npm release that will be merged in this WP version and if we won't need more. So maybe just using the branch and the lerna tags is enough.

youknowriad marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

For major WordPress releases, the last Gutenberg plugin release is merged into `g-minor`. This involves the following steps:
### Synchronizing WordPress Trunk

For each Gutenberg plugin release, WordPress trunk should be synchronized with this release. This involves the following steps:

**Note:** The WordPress `trunk` branch can be closed or in "feature-freeze" mode. Usually, this happens between the first `beta` and the first `RC` of the WordPress release cycle. During this period, the Gutenberg plugin releases should not be synchronized with WordPress Core.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should this note be moved after the list?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I prefer to keep it here, as it's important to read and stop the process if trunk is not open yet.


1. Ensure the WordPress `trunk` branch is open for enhancements.
2. Check out the last published Gutenberg release branch `git checkout release/x.x`
3. Create a Pull Request from this branch targetting `wp/trunk`.
4. Merge the Pull Request.

Now, the branch is ready to be used to publish the npm packages.

1. Check out the `wp/trunk` branch.
2. Run the [package release process] but when asked for the version numbers to choose for each package, (assuming the package versions are written using this format `major.minor.patch`) make sure to bump at least the `minor` version number. For example, if the CHANGELOG of the package to be released indicates that the next unreleased version is `5.6.1`, choose `5.7.0` as a version.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I see this as troublesome, not all packages get published during the package release process and I'm not sure what the point of bumping the minor version in major.minor.patch achieves here.

Also, as we're hoping for wider spread usage from both inside and outside of the WordPress ecosystem bumping the minor version for no apparent reason is not very semantic version friendly.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The idea is that there will be potential bug fixes and security fixes we're not aware and we'll leave room for it. In general a Gutenberg release means enhancements... and not everything is mentioned in the CHANGELOG.

With our lerna process, packages will be meant to be published without even touching them, if we change one of their dependencies.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We're struggling because of this at the moment, we can't update trunk because there might be a 5.1.1 for WordPress requiring security fixes or bug fixes we're not aware of. Right now we default to patch when we don't know and it's blocking us.

I think this is the biggest improvement in this proposal

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Right, but shouldn't the team be made aware of pending security issues to accommodate this?

At this moment, if we were to publish an update to a package, and we bumped the minor version there is no way of knowing that another security issue will be raised in the following days to which once again the package will have to have the minor bumped again and republished.

Will think on this some more overnight... 🤔

3. Update the `CHANGELOG.md` files of the published packages with the new released versions and commit to the `wp/trunk` branch.
4. Cherry-pick the "Publish" (created by Lerna) and the CHANGELOG update commits into the `master` branch of Gutenberg.

Now, the npm packages should be ready and a patch can be created and commited into WordPress `trunk`.
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think creating this kind of patches for WordPress deserves its own section/doc.


1. Check out the last published Gutenberg release branch `git checkout release/x.x`
2. Create a Pull Request from this branch into `g-minor`.
3. Merge the branch.

### Minor WordPress Releases

For minor releases, the critical fixes targeted for this WordPress Minor release should be cherry-picked into the `g-minor` branch one by one in their chronological order.
The following workflow is needed when bug fixes or security releases need to be backported into WordPress Core. This can happen in a few use-cases:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

FYI: To be aware of, WordPress currently backports when possible all the way back to WP 3.7

This raises the possibility that Gutenberg may also require patching back to 5.0

For example, if a security issue is discovered later today and is proposed to be fixed in 5.1.1 it is conceivably possible that the packages be updated will have to be backported to WordPress versions 5.0 and 5.1 as such the Gutenberg branches wp/5.0, wp/5.1, and wp/trunk will all require updating at this time.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's exactly why we need to leave "room" for bug fixes and security fixes in the package version number.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Package version numbers cannot work like that as semantic versioning dictates that once 6.7.0 is published, 6.6.9 cannot be published, nothing less than 6.7.0 can be published.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

semantic versioning dictates that once 6.7.0 is published, 6.6.9 cannot be published,

What makes you say that? How do npm package maintainers publish security fixes for old major and minor versions without forcing people to upgrade?

Copy link
Member

@ntwb ntwb Feb 27, 2019 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

They don't, people are forced to upgrade to the version with the security fix.

For example, if a vulnerability is discovered in version 1.1.1 of a package, and that same package is now at version 7.8.9, the fix for the 1.1.1 vulnerability must be released in either 7.8.10, 7.9.0, or 8.0.0. A 1.1.2 or 1.2.0 cannot be published.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think you're wrong, here's an example https://reactjs.org/blog/2018/08/01/react-v-16-4-2.html

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is where trying to align semantic versioning of packages with the WP release versioning clashes. The problem here is that a latest release of a package could result in new features to the WP version the security fix is for. This could be mitigated some by the use of the new feature flags functionality in GB but does complicate things.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Package version numbers cannot work like that as semantic versioning dictates that once 6.7.0 is published, 6.6.9 cannot be published, nothing less than 6.7.0 can be published.

I just read through the semver specs and I'm not seeing this as something that is codified. Is this something that is documented as a rule somewhere?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Package version numbers cannot work like that as semantic versioning dictates that once 6.7.0 is published, 6.6.9 cannot be published, nothing less than 6.7.0 can be published.

I don't think the spec has an opinion on this, but I've never read it that way. If so, something like PHP isn't following semver. Maintaining LTS for a specific minor release wouldn't be possible.

I always interpreted the spec as any individual version is just a comparison of the versions that are lower than it, regardless of release date.

Copy link
Member

@ntwb ntwb Feb 28, 2019 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@nerrad @earnjam I was not inferring a SemVer spec, I was inferring it as a restriction of the npm platform, that said:

@youknowriad I. Did. Not. Know. That. 💥

(I've just confirmed with npm that this can be done, also advised not to publish the backported releases with the latest npm tag.)

That will make things far simpler, though thinking about the "room" that we would leave behind, if version 1.1.1 of a package is already published, we bump the minor so that it becomes version 1.2.0, if we then have to patch version 1.1.1 for a vulnerability, by publishing the fix in 1.1.2 is that ok for semantic versioning? There is the possibility the "fix" breaks _backward compatibility which means the package should have been bumped by the minor version and not the patch version 🤔


- During the `beta` and the `RC` period of the WordPress release cycle.
- For WordPress minor releases and WordPress security releases (example `5.1.1`).

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should This can happen... part be moved after the list of steps to make it easier to follow?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe it can be reworded, but the reason it's here is to ensure that people are aware when to apply this flow before really applying it.

1. Cherry-pick
2. Check out the last published Gutenberg release branch `git checkout release/x.x`
3. Create a Pull Request from this branch targetting the WordPress related major branch (Example `wp/5.2`).
4. Merge the Pull Request.

Now, the branch is ready to be used to publish the npm packages.

1. Check out the WordPress branch used before (Example `wp/5.2`).
2. Run the [package release process] but when asked for the version numbers to choose for each package, (assuming the package versions are written using this format `major.minor.patch`) make sure to bump only the `patch` version number. For example, if the last published package version for this WordPress branch was `5.6.0`, choose `5.6.1` as a version.

**Note:** For WordPress `5.0` and WordPress `5.1`, a different release process was used. This means that when choosing npm package versions targetting these two releases, you won't be able to use the next `patch` version number as it may have been already used. You should use the "metadata" modifier for these. For example, if the last published package version for this WordPress branch was `5.6.1`, choose `5.6.1+patch.1` as a version.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This will be problematic for other projects using our packages, it is not semver friendly at all.

See also my above comment https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/pull/14136/files#r260688733

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What alternatives do we have?

Copy link
Member

@ntwb ntwb Feb 27, 2019 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Continue to use semantic versioning:

If WordPress 5.1.1 is planned due to a security issue with the @wordpress/editor package which is at the time of writing is currently version 9.0.11 then the @wordpress/editor package is patched, updated, and published as version 9.1.0.

That version 9.1.0 version of @wordpress/editor is then backported into both the wp/5.0 and wp/5.1 branches (and wp/trunk)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The thing is 9.1.0 might already exist because the wp.5.2 might have already included it, so how do you go about patching the old versions without also adding features from the new versions?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For the past you cannot, the deprecations in the packages will have to support the previous versions of WordPress per the Gutenberg deprecation policy

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not talking about breaking any compatibility here. I'm taking about:

  • WP 5.0.3 includes the editor package with 9.0.11
  • WP 5.1 includes the editor package with version 9.0.12
  • Trunk includes the editor package with version 9.1.0

(These are random numbers to illustrate)

A security issue is discovered and concerns all these packages, WordPress has to ship a security release for both 5.0, 5.1 and also fix the issue in trunk. How do we proceed?

Contraints:

  • We want to include only this security fix for the previous versions, we don't want to add features that have been built for future versions.

Which versions do you publish and include in the WordPress releases 5.0.4, 5.1.1 and trunk?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Based on the above #14136 (comment) knowing that we can backport the fixes going for the option of bumping the packages minor version number before release would allow us to avoid the above scenario...

As the WP 5.0 branch would have v9.0.x of the package, before releasing WP 5.1 the package minor is bumped to v9.1.x, this allows for multiple 9.0.x release to be backport puiblished for WP 5.0.x's, eg, 9.0.11 for WP 5.0.3, 9.0.12 for WP 5.0.4, 9.0.13 for WP 5.0.5 etc etc, and for WP 5.1.x, 9.1.1, 9.1.2, 9.1.3 and on are available, bump the minor again for WP 5.2 and 9.2.x range is available.

For projects other than WordPress using our packages, a note on all the repos that a minor bump to all packages occurs when WP publishes a new version should document for the most part as to why we are slightly breaking semver on our packages, occasionly.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

9.0.12 for WP 5.0.4

In my example, this is not possible because 9.0.12 already existed and is used in 5.1 and we don't have room to add fixes between 9.0.11 and 9.0.12, that's why this is a special case using "metadata". I know that it's not perfect and that it's not "full semver" as npm will consider these versions as the same unless you explicitely target one but I don't think we have choices here because this scenario already happened, in this part, I'm trying to find a way to solve it when we face it.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, I realise that, what I'm saying is we should do as you suggested above, and in the above scenario before WP 5.1 was shipped we would have bumped the editor package from the current 9.0.11 to 9.1.0, thus WP 5.1 would have shipped with 9.1.0 and we'd have the remaining 9.0.x versions for as many WP 5.0.x releases required over the coming years, WP 5.0.55 would use 9.0.66 😏


### Releasing the WordPress packages
3. Update the `CHANGELOG.md` files of the published packages with the new released versions and commit to the corresponding branch (Example `wp/5.2`).
4. Cherry-pick the CHANGELOG update commits into the `master` branch of Gutenberg.

1. Check out the `g-minor` branch.
2. Run the [package release process].
3. Update the `CHANGELOG.md` files of the published packages with the new released versions and commit to the `g-minor` branch.
Now, the npm packages should be ready and a patch can be created and commited into the corresponding WordPress SVN branch.

---------

Expand Down