[llvm-dev] RFC: Release process changes

John McCall via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu May 21 17:54:57 PDT 2020


On 21 May 2020, at 14:59, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to propose a few changes to the LLVM release process.  
> The
> current process is documented here:  
> https://llvm.org/docs/HowToReleaseLLVM.html
>
> There are two parts to this proposal.  The first is a list of 
> clarifications,
> which are things we are currently doing that aren't documented. The 
> second
> is a list of changes which would actually modify how releases are 
> currently
> managed.
>
>
>
> *** Proposed Clarifications ***
>
>
>
> **  Release manager is allowed to commit changes to the release branch 
> without
>     code owner approval.  However, the release manager is encouraged 
> to consult
>     with code owners or patch reviewers for non-trivial changes.
>
> It's not practical to get code owner approval every time.  Either 
> because there
> is no code owner or because the number of backports is too high (e.g. 
> pre-rc1 / pre-rc2).
> This proposed clarification matches how releases are currently 
> managed.

If this is how things are currently managed, it’s hard to argue 
against it,
but I do think that — independently — we should make a stronger 
effort to
ensure that we have active code owners covering the entire codebase.

My sense is that the ownership problem is deepest in two specific parts
of the project: compiler-rt and LLVM itself.  Do you agree?

John.

>
>
> ** There is no official release criteria.
>
> We have time-based releases and when the release is 'ready' has been
> up to the discretion of the release manager.  Changing the release
> criteria is out of the scope of this proposal, but I do think it would
> be good to have a discussion about this as a community, so I'm going 
> to
> start a separate thread to discuss this.
>
>
>
> *** Proposed Changes ***
>
>
>
> ** Create a time-based bug-fix release schedule.  After each major 
> release, make
>    a new bug-fix release every 2 weeks for 12 weeks (6 releases 
> total).
>
> ** Eliminate release candidates for bug-fix releases.
>
> The current unofficial bug-fix release schedule is:
>
> X.Y.1-rc1 (6 weeks after major release)
> X.Y.1-rc2 (10 weeks after major release)
> X.Y.1-final (12 weeks after major release)
>
> I think this change will improve the overall test coverage of the 
> release branch.
> I don't think the branch itself or even the release candidates get the 
> same
> level of testing as the final releases.  If we are consistently 
> snapshotting
> the release branch and putting out releases, I think this will make it 
> easier
> and thus more likely that users will test out the release branch code.
>
> Additionally, with more frequent bug-fix release it removes the need 
> to have
> release candidate releases. Every bug-fix release (up until the last 
> one)
> would serve the same purpose as our current release candidates in that 
> they
> are intended to give users an easier way to test the code before the 
> final
> release.
>
>
> ** Create clear rules for what kind of backports are accepted during 
> each
>    release phase.
>
> * Before RC1:Patches should be limited to bug fixes, important 
> optimization
>   improvements, or completion of features that were started before the 
> branch
>   was created.  As with all phases, release managers and code owners 
> can reject
>   patches that are deemed too invasive.
>
> * Before RC2: Patches should be limited to bug fixes or backend 
> specific
>   improvements that are determined to be very safe.
>
> * Before RC3/Final: Major Release* Patches should be limited to 
> critical
>   bugs or regressions.
>
> * Bug fix releases: Patches should be limited to bug fixes or very 
> safe
>   and critical performance improvements.  Patches must maintain both 
> API and
>   ABI compatibility with the previous major release.
>
> * Final bug fix release: Patches should be limited to critical bug 
> fixes only.
>
>
>
> What does everyone thing about these changes?
>
>
> -Tom
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list