-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 118
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
docs: Update release process #307
docs: Update release process #307
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Christian Kadner <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Christian Kadner <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Christian Kadner <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Christian Kadner <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Christian Kadner <[email protected]>
RELEASE_PROCESS.md
Signed-off-by: Christian Kadner <[email protected]>
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 @ckadner these look really good. Just had a couple of minor comments
release/RELEASE_PROCESS.md
Outdated
1. They simplify back porting critical bug fixes to a patch level release for a particular release stream (e.g., producing a `v0.6.1` from `release-0.6`), when appropriate. | ||
1. They allow a release wrangler or other developers to focus on a release without interrupting development on `main`, | ||
2. They allow developers to track the development of a release before a release candidate is declared, | ||
3. They simplify back porting critical bug fixes to a patch level release for a particular release stream (e.g., producing a `v0.6.1` from `release-0.6`), when appropriate. |
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.
nit: Any reason for changing the numbering here (same applies to 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.
you mean we should use 0.10 as an example or how we utilize Mardown numbering here?
release/RELEASE_PROCESS.md
Outdated
11. Compare the release and release artifacts to those of previous releases to make | ||
sure nothing was missed. Verify that the newly released version of the | ||
[`modelmesh-controller`](https://hub.docker.com/r/kserve/modelmesh-controller/tags) | ||
was pushed to DockerHub. |
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.
Should we mention anything about testing / checking fvt results?
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.
yup -- my running list:
- FVT, test -- verify the "check" results on last pushed tag
- update KServe ... website, charts (more details to be gathered)
- work with Dan on a relase blog
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.
Just leaving a few proofreading-related comments! Thanks Christian.
Signed-off-by: Christian Kadner <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Christian Kadner <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Christian Kadner <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Christian Kadner <[email protected]>
Thanks for your review @rafvasq -- I addressed your comments and added the post-release section including the step about working with Dan on a release blog. If you have further guidance on that, please advice :-) |
Signed-off-by: Christian Kadner <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Christian Kadner <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Christian Kadner <[email protected]>
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 Christian, just a few nits and a question about where FVTs fits in to all of this.
Re: the release blog and collaboration with Dan, I think you captured it fine. I ended up simply providing the ModelMesh portion of the blog to him via a review.
docs/release-process.md
Outdated
action to push the respective (pre-)release container images to DockerHub which | ||
are needed in the next step. | ||
|
||
2. Verify image tags got pushed to [DockerHub](https://hub.docker.com/u/kserve): |
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.
nit: "were pushed"
docs/release-process.md
Outdated
|
||
## Release Blog | ||
|
||
If possible work with [Dan Sun](https://kubeflow.slack.com/archives/D04PVPHMN8K) |
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.
nit: "If possible, work with" (comma)
docs/release-process.md
Outdated
|
||
## Update the KServe Website | ||
|
||
In the `kserve/website` repository update all reference to the previous ModelMesh |
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.
nit: "In the kserve/website repository, update" (comma)
Signed-off-by: Christian Kadner <[email protected]>
Thank you for your detailed review @rafvasq -- I pushed another update addressing your comments |
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 @ckadner, I left a link to v.10's blog but think there are enough examples and linking to the PR draft like you did is helpful too. Up to you if you want to include it too. Otherwise LGTM :)
- [v0.7.0](https://kserve.github.io/website/blog/articles/2021-10-11-KServe-0.7-release) | ||
- [v0.8.0](https://kserve.github.io/website/0.8/blog/articles/2022-02-18-KServe-0.8-release/#modelmesh-updates) | ||
- [v0.9.0](https://kserve.github.io/website/0.9/blog/articles/2022-07-21-KServe-0.9-release/#inferenceservice-api-for-modelmesh) | ||
- [v0.10.0 draft](https://github.com/kserve/website/pull/227#discussion_r1098917277) |
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.
FYI, v0.10's blog has now been released.
Thanks @ckadner! |
/lgtm |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: ckadner, njhill, rafvasq The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Proposed Changes
Elaborate the steps in the release process.
https://github.com/ckadner/modelmesh-serving/blob/update-release-process-doc/docs/release-process.md
Updates since last review:
modelmesh-minio-examples
imageconfig/crd/bases
)v0.10.0
kserve#2645)