Closed MarkAckert closed 4 years ago
Good point. I think date came from looking at schedule for 1.10 and is just a guess. Maybe we say 1q? We can discuss.
Bruce Armstrong Armstrob@us.ibm.com
Sent from my iPhone using IBM Verse
On Nov 5, 2019, 12:27:28 PM, notifications@github.com wrote:
From: notifications@github.com To: zlc@noreply.github.com Cc: armstrob@us.ibm.com, mention@noreply.github.com Date: Nov 5, 2019, 12:27:28 PM Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [zowe/zlc] Zowe Long Term Support Plan (#72)
The draft looks great!! My only comment is that there are dates "Feb 8th" mentioned in the charts. Is this ok? Are we ready to commit to that date? —You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
Zowe.OSS.2019-20.Roadmap Rev 7.pptx Modified chart and added bullet regarding backward compatibility
I think this draft gives us the necessary flexibility to commit and move forward. I propose we move to vote on this before year end.
What do we say about Conformance v1 (or Conformance 2019) users? Will they continue to work against Zowe v1.x Active LTS?
We discussed last week on the ZLC about breaking changes into the v1.x LTS drop....and this impacts for Conformance v1. If we intend to break, we must give the 60-90 day heads up if I recall correctly...
Attempt to make another rev of the slides for ZLC meeting 1/15/20 ..... Zowe.OSS.2019-20.Roadmap.Rev.8.pptx
Another attempt to state support and N-1 compatibility policy. Zowe.OSS.2019-20.Roadmap.Rev.9.pptx
Also re- LTS_Zoweorg_Design.pdf attaching prior design for posting to zowe.org -
Two things:
John - good point to get into release process docs - once have have agreement from the zlc on the words and chart we can fold into appropriate places .....the reason the the chart and proposal to update the zowe.org site was to follow the example of the node.js community here: https://nodejs.org/en/about/releases/
Our release/version schedule plus support policy is going to be a big deal to customers, ISVs and SIs so we would rather not have it in the "fine print".....we can put it there for the legal record but having something on zowe.org will be important too.
Bruce Armstrong IBM System Z Offering Manager- zowe.org 4205 S MIAMI BLVD, DURHAM NC 27703-9141 Email: armstrob@us.ibm.com Tel: 919-254-8773 Cell: 919-931-3132
From: John Mertic notifications@github.com To: zowe/zlc zlc@noreply.github.com Cc: Bruce Armstrong armstrob@us.ibm.com, Mention mention@noreply.github.com Date: 01/23/2020 07:46 AM Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [zowe/zlc] Zowe Long Term Support Plan (#72)
Two things: Let's translate this from a PPT and add to the release process docs. Needs to be done anyway - so might as well have the review done in that format to avoid the "lost in translation" issues that can happen. I don't see why we'd have the entire chart on the release process on the main page of zowe.org - I'd just reference the aforementioned Release Process docs and make things easier. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
@armstro Definitely good to document - glad to see the collaboration here.
Looking at the node.js example, it is on a sub-page - which was sorta my point.
There is a larger picture of trying to consolidate docs - but that's a whole other conversation ;-)
Does conformance then tie to a specific Version and Release? Seems like a Version is not good enough if a breaking change can be introduced in a release update. I'm a little confused about how breaking changes fit into this model?
Truly breaking change will be done on version boundaries.......there are "changes of note" or what I call "++Hold" type changes where the code will work but there may be a configuration action needed.
Bruce Armstrong IBM System Z Offering Manager- zowe.org 4205 S MIAMI BLVD, DURHAM NC 27703-9141 Email: armstrob@us.ibm.com Tel: 919-254-8773 Cell: 919-931-3132
From: Matt Hogstrom notifications@github.com To: zowe/zlc zlc@noreply.github.com Cc: Bruce Armstrong armstrob@us.ibm.com, Mention mention@noreply.github.com Date: 01/27/2020 05:10 PM Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [zowe/zlc] Zowe Long Term Support Plan (#72)
Does conformance then tie to a specific Version and Release? Seems like a Version is not good enough if a breaking change can be introduced in a release update. I'm a little confused about how breaking changes fit into this model? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
Sorry Matt - just saw this @hogstrom Conformance is tied to a version .....I find the term "breaking change" confusing - how about we clarify what that means - my proposal is
For more on breaking changes, please see some discussion here: https://github.com/zowe/zlc/issues/152
Zowe.OSS.2019-20.Roadmap.Rev.12.pptx
Tks @armstro - I've added a new chart 2 to describe version, release, modification numbering (that I promised 2 ZLCs ago so apologies it's late) and I've also done some minor updates to try and describe the relationship with conformance program.
One question I have is that currently we provide a software distribution every 4-6 weeks v1 which will become active-LTS. When we begin v2 which will kick of Current, I imagine we will be building every 4-6 weeks also as we'll just switch active development to current. How frequently will we release active-LTS while current is in its 6-9 month period ? Would we also release active-LTS on the same frequency as current for 6 months, and if so when would we reduce the number of distributions when the switch occurs so current becomes active and active becomes maintenance ? Would we reduce those to be quarterly ? I'm wondering if on chart 1 we should discuss when software is released from each stream, or if not whether we should call out release cadence in the roadmap ?
Zowe.OSS.2019-20.Roadmap.Rev.13.pptx
Updated to include updates from Peter Fandel
Propose zowe.org site changes be done as follows Zowe.OSS.2019-20.Roadmap.Rev.14.pptx Support policy in words .docx
Recommend the New Conformance Program description and new process for Q&A be updated at the same time.....
@armstro @jmertic Hi Bruce, John, For the LTS updates to be made on zowe.org, I previously created a PR and then closed. Based on the comment above, it seems the new design is as follows. @jmertic I can make these changes and open a PR for review if you prefer. Just let me know. Thanks!
YES thanks @nannanli for being so attentive to this item. One minor change to the words in the Word Doc is to NOT link to the new conformance criteria (yet). @RASakach wants to rollout the new conformance criteria over time and the new plan to help people with Q&A. So my proposal is to just post the LTS info on zowe.org .......it would be great if you or @jmertic could do pull request and I would like to prev to the ZLC the new info before we go live. Thanks
@armstro Two PRs have been created for preview.
Zowe.org Preview screen capture
Providing update chart reflecting the actual date of 1.9 and stating 1.9 as LTS - I will propose this chart be used with the LTS policy description on zowe.org. Zowe.OSS.2019-20.Roadmap.Rev.15 chart with dates .pptx
@armstro FYI - The chart screen capture has been updated in the PR. https://github.com/zowe/zowe.github.io/pull/75
A few comments:
Thank you @solsu01 ! Comments are incorporated. After revision:
Who has ppt? can it be reattached here please - Per ZLC discussion today (March 11, 2020) we want to adjust slightly to show new conformance roll out.
As part of post-1.0.0 activities, we need to discuss how to support teams which have breaking changes in their near term development timeline. The term 'breaking' specifically refers to changes which would violate backwards compatibility within any public-facing API.
One suggestion: